>> ^Yogi:

No 9/11 was not more significant because we were going to invade Iraq anyways. Look it took me 9 years to earn this education through reading tons of authors and studying tons of declassified documents. I can't exactly distill it down on this board. I will say that you're right it shouldn't be that way in a democratic nation, I put to you that our democracy is broken...it does not work and it was never intended to.


So you refuse to admit that 9/11 had more influence than Haliburton's profits on the decision to invade Afghanistan?

As for Iraq you can take heart, change is in the winds. Gaddafi is far weaker in Libya today, and it appears that all the industrial war machine's desires to launch another American invasion there are being ignored.

If you want to claim Iraq's invasion as horrific, you also get to wear the chain of pride for the world's inaction in Libya as Gaddafi promises a repeat of Tiannanmen square on his people. 3 cheers for Libya's Gaddafi and for America shaking off the chains of the military industrial complex.

No 9/11 was not more significant because we were going to invade Iraq anyways. Look it took me 9 years to earn this education through reading tons of authors and studying tons of declassified documents. I can't exactly distill it down on this board. I will say that you're right it shouldn't be that way in a democratic nation, I put to you that our democracy is broken...it does not work and it was never intended to.

>> ^RFlagg:

Attitudes like this is perhaps part of the reason the US is down at number 20 in the Press Freedom Index... but I agree, we need more context, what did she say after that and how did the crowd react to it. If this is more or less the full context...then wow, she may be worse than I thought, and I thought she was pretty bad.


Since it's from Media Matters I would think the context would give you the same impression. They almost never fuck-up (especially when it comes down to evaporating a long comment into it's distilled meaning), when they do fuck-up it's a "look-up" fact that is wrong.

Anyway, I think Ann Coulter is best described as being Ayn Rand's and Dick Cheney's love child with Marilyn Manson's makeup people. Every-time I see her talk(s), it eventually feels like I'm looking at the event horizon for a black hole.

@dystopianfuturetoday

Somebody needs to doublepromote and quality this sift.

Strangely enough this guy follows my journey fairly close. Although, my belief in my faith ended quite a bit quicker and I didn't have the "psychotic" disconnect in my thoughts; thinking one half of me was God (the reverent, introspective, inner voice we all use when not active doing something -- before sleep, for example). But, I never had people in my life that actively tried to create these schizophrenic/psychotic leanings and learnings (except "The Holy Ghost/Spirit"; it was taught to be a feeling of what was right or wrong -- I'm guessing they never understood that our instincts are much closer to that relation than the previous inclination and require no supernatural interventions).

I also had to realize that the education they had (elders or older; secondly, older people get a courtesy from me still, but only as it applies to practical experience and "common sense" wisdom -- anything supernatural or distinctly at odds with facts will be discarded, quickly) greatly differed if only for the sure fact that my schooling was in an age of far more known and it's dissemination was far more readily available. It had also had time to be distilled into easier to understand methodology, for example: high school courses, that in my parents high school years would've been a college or university class.

This is very well done and very articulate. I've never understood the inability to be able to put your faith, for a moment, to the side and weigh with equal fervor: fact versus what you've been told (all of which is hearsay of hearsay...). If your faith or your God is so fragile that it cannot withstand a few worthless scientists "testing you" then it's not worth having anyway.

If your faith forces you to run away from these talks at the mere mention of it, I will guarantee to you that one day, when you need it, your faith will fail you. Some lose their faith from this, without even talking or looking at contradictory information.

Very well done and a great find @dystopianfuturetoday. The sift is better with this. How about a new call (must be invoked by four people or so and it only affects the channel(s) it belongs to; except for the first week it's invoked): *doublequality or as I would like *permanentquality ...

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
People who behave in ways that are this foolish deserve probationary, limited voting rights for a time.

First off, lets ignore how trivial it would be to buy small worthless plots of land in the middle of nowhere just for the ability to vote. It's just a poll tax by another name. The ability to get around the restriction will just lead to a stronger desire for restrictions by those who can vote, which leads to my next point.

While removing a non-random sample of people from the voter pool would affect voting trends, it also removes representation for those removed. Politicians wouldn't have to worry about proposing legislation that hurt those who can't vote as long as it benefited those who can. That may seem like a good thing if you believe it will consolidate power with a group you agree with, but once power shifts to someone you don't like then there are far fewer avenues available to combat their policies.

Voter exclusion is not a path to "better" voters because you cannot accurately predict the effects of such a specific change in a complex system. Conservatives talk all the time about the "unintended consequences" of government intervention in free markets. Restrictions that are meant to fix one problem create entirely unforeseen new problems that can be even worse than the original issue, and that becomes very powerful and dangerous when those changes are distilling the views of a specific subset of the population.

Also, it is within rights of a municipality to ban drilling - for example recently Pittsburgh voted to ban drilling rights within city limits. Also, at least in Allegheny county PA, homeowners don't retain the mineral rights (including drilling), so other townships can vote similar. There is a distinction between homesteads and farmsteads though, but I don't own a farm so I'm not familiar.

Personally I'm not against natural gas drilling, but I'm against the contractors who are doing it, and the corners they are cutting to save a buck. And even if you installed a Dean-Kamen-style water purifier in every home, the contaminants and heavy metals in the run-off will go to all the streams, rivers, lakes, tributaries and have a definite negative impact on the environment.

>> ^laura:

He is saying "propanediol" & propylene glycol...
A quick wiki search tells me that propanediol can be formed by "Conversion from glycerol (a by-product of biodiesel production) using Clostridium diolis bacteria."
...so could bacteria be breaking down components of the oil into propanediol/propylene glycol? ...not necessarily that it had to have come from the Corexit? Just wondering....


"In response to public pressure, the EPA and Nalco released the list of the six ingredients in Corexit 9500, revealing constituents including sorbitan, butanedioic acid, and petroleum distillates.[3] Corexit EC9500A is mainly comprised of hydrotreated light petroleum distillates, propylene glycol and a proprietary organic sulfonate.[16] Environmentalists also pressured Nalco to reveal to the public what concentrations of each chemical are in the product; Nalco considers that information to be a trade secret, but has shared it with the EPA.[17] Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used as a solvent or moisturizer in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and is of relatively low toxicity. An organic sulfonate (or organic sulfonic acid salt) is a synthetic chemical detergent, that acts as a surfactant to emulsify oil and allow its dispersion into water. The identity of the sulfonate used in both forms of Corexit was disclosed to the EPA in June 2010, as dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[18]" wiki

Distilled genius is what this is. In its purest form.

The scary part happens when Republican presidents get the media to systematically silence dissent...

The only ‘silencing of dissent’ is on the left side of the aisle. And how nice it all sounds… ‘Net Neutrality’, the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, ‘Political Correctness’, ‘Academic Fairness’… The left is the side that engages in the systematic suppression of dissent – not the right. I have a longer memory span than 5 minutes, and there is nothing BUT ‘dissent’ when the GOP is in the White House. Dissent was ‘patriotic’ during Bush, but now is ‘the party of NO’ during Obama, right? But of course good little left-wing zombies have no problem with that.

If I break something of yours, do you have to 100% go through the courts to get compensation? No. Why? Because civil court is totally optional.

If you break my stuff (and refuse to pay for it) then YES I 100% have to go through the courts to get compensation. You’ve proven my point. I don’t go to Obama’s pay czar. Court is where I go, and failing that, I call my congressman and let him know the courts aren't doing their job. I do NOT go to the Executive branch except to write a whiny letter.

I have not been programmed to have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response where I wet myself with fear whenever the word "government" comes into play.

This is patently untrue. You do have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response to wet yourself with fear whenever the word ‘government’ comes into play and ‘conservative’ is involved. The blind, unthinking, slavish trust only applies when a left wing radical is in charge. I believe it was Lenin (another leftist) who called these kinds of fanbois “useful idiots”. People who aren’t critical of government at all times and in all things are fools. The price of freedom is vigilance, and the only good government is LIMITED government.

I'm sure there will be Congressional oversight of this

Oh – well – that ignores history, facts, and precedent - but as long as you're SURE... You aren’t picking up what I’m putting down. I don’t care if Obama is distilled perfection made of unicorn hairs and angel feathers… It doesn’t matter if BP ‘volunteers’ (yeah right – then why the closed door meeting?). This is not something the Executive branch is allowed to do for ANY reason. Ever. Period. It has no authority to do this, and government isn’t allowed to just ‘assume’ authority over whatever they want no matter how munificent they may think they are.

Ahh, so now you're defining down what constitutes a legitimate claim from what even BP says is legitimate? Good to know you don't want to "let them off the hook"...

No – I’m defining ‘responsible’. BP isn’t responsible for lost business. Tourism down? Is that BP’s fault? Maybe partly. But you can also blame the media, the government, the economy, and a whole host of other parties for that. BP is responsible for damage and cleanup. That's it. I see no need for them to pay for ancillary issues that may or may not be related.

Everyone is answerable.

To who? When? You say ‘answerable’ but one of the main problems with federal government is that NO ONE is ever held responsible for anything. They never go to jail for breaking the law. They never pay damages for the consequences of their bad politics. So they ‘lose an election’? Awwwwwww – how terrible for them. They still keep getting money & payola. They still get political back-patting. They still get put on unaccountable ‘blue ribbon’ panels for exorbitant payoffs. They keep getting on TV shows and money for speeches, commentary and books. They still are put on cabinet positions, or other unelected unaccountable political jobs where they still effect policy and get away with murder.

See, when you really get down to the brass tacks the political class is in NO WAY ever ‘answerable’ for their bad behavior and terrible decisions. They just get a brief – all too toothless – wet noodling and then skate off clean while everyone else has to pay for them to keep on partying. Clinton. Impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Did he lose his office? No. Did he go to jail? No. Did he have to pay millions in damages? No. He got a tiny slap on the wrist and then the left circled the wagons around him and set him up for life so he’d specifically NEVER have to be truly culpable for his high crime. He should be in jail, or living in a cardboard shack, penniless and shunned to the end of his days. Instead he’s living high on the hog courtesy of constant political payola. And you call that ‘answerable’?

So what happens WHEN (not IF) Obama’s pay czar starts mis-handling the BP funds? Exactly HOW is he going to be ‘answerable’? To whom will he pay millions in damages? What jail will he go to? How will he be banned from politics for life afterwards? And how is Obama ‘answerable’ for unconstitutionally claiming money in the first place? But I don’t hear anyone making him ‘answerable’ for his unconstitutional, illegal act. All I see are left-wing zombies defending the illegal, and GOP cowards who don't have to guts to stand up for the constitution anymore.

This is pretty much as simply as I could put everything, it's a long relatively disorganized post so be prepared:

>> ^blutruth:

Also, I'm not a doctor, just some guy with access to a search engine, so don't take my word for it.


Thanks blutruth for looking into these kinds of claims instead of just watching videos as fact like most people do. I, on the other hand, AM in the medical field, and slightly disagree with this video.

>> ^cybrbeast:

Thanks for sources blutruth. But I have a problem with your simple in/out calcualtion. If you drink less there is also less to come out. I.e. if you drink a lot you will pee a lot and your pee will be colorless. If you drink less water you pee much less, but it will become ever more yellow/brown. The big question is at what color is your pee showing you, you drink too little.
There is a lot of range in the insensible water loss, which as stated in the clip means you don't have to drink much if you don't do much physical activity.


cybrbeast you are simplifying your argument too much. The simple in/out calculation is exactly that, simple. The information backing it has to do with body self-regulation with Urine/Plasma Osmolality tied to with Glomerular Filtration Rate, reabsorption of relevant electrolytes, and hormones controlling these functions. After studying the method of how a body detects it's own fluid level(effective circulating volume, also blood pressure), and working out how each system in it's own produces an effect on either water loss/retention, we worked out the approximate numbers of a person's water requirements. We even have a formula to check a person's current water deficit:

Water Deficit = 0.4 x Lean Body Weight x (plasma [Na]/140 -1)
(Renal Pathophysiology: The Essentials by Rennke/Denker pg. 90)(http://www.amazon.com/Renal-Pathophysiology-Essentials-Helmut-Rennke/dp/0781796261/)

The best way to answer your second question is about pee color, is to look at urine osmolalities. Urine osmolality can range from 50-100 mOsm/kg to 1000-1400 mOsm/kg(same renal book, page 206). The lower the osmolality, the more concentrated your urine is(and the more yellow it is) and the more water your body is retaining. There is no "perfect pee," from what I have learned, only a pretty relaxed range which anyone with access to fluids can maintain. If you want a specific color or osmolality you won't find one.

You are right when it comes to the large range of the insensible water loss, but you would be surprised what would make you lose that water and how much of it. Unfortunately I don't have time to look up the exact numbers of insensible water loss, but off the top of my head I can list physical activity (through sweating), breathing, environment with low humidity or high temperature. These little things can all add up to water loss.

Also stimulants like amphetamines, methamphetamines, caffeine, and depressants such as alcohol can lead to increased water loss.

What I'll also add to this is that it isn't only water that you lose throughout the day, but also electrolytes that need replacing through food and other sources. Drinking something such as distilled water will not do you any good, some of the best things to drink are isotonic solutions and juices that have many other nutrients and not just water that keep you going. Thanks for your time.

So in essence, if I can distil the video down is. Don't believe scientists. The people who go by the name, "Insane Clown Posse", are far more reliable.

To be honest.. I can taste the difference between waters.

Distilled has a unique taste to it, to the point where I actually dislike drinking it, and there's a definite difference in the way Canadian/American tap water tastes.

That being said.. this truly is ridiculous spending, but on the plus side most of those bottles look like glass, so at least they're recyclable.

My family for YEARS had one of those fridges that dispenses water, it wasn't practical though, so we switched to bottles. Once we realized that we were spending 50+ a month (for a family of four) to drink these like 700 ML bottles of water, we spent that much on a brita and haven't bought any bottles since.

Just on a closing note though.. Don't denounce buying bottles of water, they DO taste different, Disani is one of the easiest to tell. Buying pure distilled water isn't a crime.. So long as it's not being sold for ludacris amounts.

1. Claim: 40% of bottled water is taken from municipal tap water
-- What they don't mention is that there are additional steps in the process after they get the tap water, such as reverse osmosis, which is usually listed on the label (and I'm certain that lying about it on the label is illegal). Reverse osmosis is more effective than the almost-nothing that is done to remove agricultural runoff contaminants and such from tap water. Aquafina is basically the same water that coca-cola puts into their sodas, and the reason it's subjected to an additional reverse osmosis step is to standardize the taste. Some local tap water is nasty.

2. X% of bottled water tested above the strictest health guidelines (but not the legal limit) for one or more chemicals.
So does the tap water in the vast majority of zipcodes. Check your own zipcode in that website.

3. Bottled water is less regulated: This is true, unfortunately. There should be stricter standards for contaminants in bottled water. There should be stricter standards for contaminants in tap water as well. Tap water is purified by crude filtration that is effective at removing sewage and particles larger than a micron, but ineffective at removing most dissolved contaminants.

If you buy distilled water in large quantities it's like fifty cents a gallon, which is not bad. That also wastes an order of magnitude less packaging material per pint of water.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^blankfist
:
Aquafina and Dasani are just bottled tap water.

It's not "just bottled tap water" They take tap water and subject it to an additional purification step, just like your Brita, except reverse osmosis is much more effective than a carbon filter. Reverse osmosis is nearly as good as distillation.


And then they add salt to it.

>> ^blankfist:

Aquafina and Dasani are just bottled tap water.


It's not "just bottled tap water" They take tap water and subject it to an additional purification step, just like your Brita, except reverse osmosis is much more effective than a carbon filter. Reverse osmosis is nearly as good as distillation.