He was successful.....at beating his face into Pelosi's foot....and at getting less than he was offered.
Now he's successful in undermining his own political argument, admitting there is no emergency and blatantly planning on stealing funding from anti drug funds and the military, Republican third rails.

Unfortunately, an actual emergency isn't required for the president to declare one. Hopefully the theory that Pentagon money can't be diverted for civil projects will hold up, as will every challenge to how he plans on exercising his expanded powers, but with the okeydoke gang on the supreme court, there's no telling.
*quality questioning....deplorable answering

Wow. Those are astonishingly good numbers and, considering what you eat, are conclusive enough that these foods can be eaten in a heart healthy diet with great results even without excessive exercise.

I'm curious what the numbers are in our Vegan friend's blood, I seriously doubt they would be better than yours.

It's not surprising, but is disappointing to me that he discounted your numbers as inconclusive and/or unique natural anomalies, since they don't support his 'animal products are deadly poison for all people' claims.

I would theorize that the stress caused by worrying incessantly over what you (and others) eat is far more dangerous than the health effects of all but the worst, most highly processed foods....maybe worse than any foods.

Edit: BTW, I'm 48...going on 13, and I had my blood tested last summer....I didn't memorize my numbers, but the doctor said they were all well within the safe/healthy range so I didn't feel a need to keep track. I don't eat eggs, but I make up for it with extra bacon and butter, and meat at nearly every meal (but I only eat one meal a day).

They were arguing over which foods were healthy and unhealthy around the time I was born. I suspect such arguments will continue after I am dead.

I eat butter. I eat eggs. I eat bacon. I don't even exercise that much.

I'm 45, almost 46.

My HDL as tested a month ago was 46. My LDL was 29. My Triglycerides were 121.

I'm not suggesting you do it for your own benefit, but rather to see if the methodology in the study works, as I figured this would be much more productive than splitting hairs about the study details :-)

I think you may have also misunderstood the methodology, as it doesn't require non-exercise, it just says it doesn't play an important part of the weight loss. If you were to try this for a few weeks, you could still exercise, and you should still see your results mirror those of the study.

There's also nothing restrictive about it, you can eat any cuisine you want, it's just a matter of replacing a couple of ingredients to minimize the processed ingredients and animal foods.

E.g. beef burrito turns into a bean burrito. All the flavours are still there :-)

Well, there are multiple problems with that.

First, I don’t really need to lose weight much.

Second, I’m pretty active anyway, so “no exercise” would never be a thing for me.

But most importantly, I love food way too much to restrict myself to that kind of diet.

I can believe that a plant based diet is healthy, but there’s no way that study proves “No exercise, all you can eat weight loss”.

There are a multitude of problems with it, starting with the tiny sample size and selection bias.

The fact that he's doing things the hard way is a testament to his willpower, so hat's off, but there is a much better way:

No exercise, all you can eat weight loss : https://www.nature.com/articles/nutd20173

Essentially just eat foods like this Fire Fighter recommends:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZhReouWekQ

It's so easy you'll slap yourself. Try it for 2 or 3 weeks, and see for yourself, all the recipes are free at http://ForksOverKnives.com/ or just google for "whole foods plant-based *burger/pasta/pizza/curry/burrito* " or whatever it is that you enjoy eating.

OK. I'll ask the question. Which one?

EIA Abbreviation for:

enteroinsular axis
enzyme immunoassay
Equality Impact Assessment
excessive inappropriate aggression
exercise-induced asthma
external iliac artery
extracorporeal immunoadsorption

I was referring to the headline itself.
It seemed to be inferring that if only they had a wee bit more time... seeing as you were all about how things were being phrased.
That is how I took it at first but then was actually somewhat miffed they didn't fulfill my bias against them in the actual article.
I read into it what I was used to seeing on there.
I could have deleted it but I let it stand as an exercise in how the mind sees what it wants or is expecting to.
As for the decision on Acosta.
I saw that early this morning.
It was of course covered by Fox as well.

After watching that routine you have to be inspired to go exercise your muscle.

This video still doesn't apply to the 'kids' tag. That tag is for stuff that children might find enjoyable.

As far as the campaign of terror, I agree that it sucks and they shouldn't be subjected to it in a perfect world.

This isn't that world. Sadly, from a legal standpoint, any action taken against the people exercising their first amendment rights would likely result in lawsuits. I can't speak to whether the school, law enforcement, or the mayor issued statements denouncing this because I couldn't find if they did. They should have and would have been legally within their rights to do so, but beyond that they CAN DO NOTHING.

To be fair, he also said this while criticising a bunch of people who actually do a job he's too much of a coward to do.

You never know until you're tested, fine, but it's not hard to look at the kind of person you are and extrapolate. When has Trump ever done anything like that in his life? Hell, I'd believe Nixon (scumbag that he was) would run into that school before Trump. At least he was in WW2.

Now, I don't hold lack of military service against someone, but Trump doesn't even look likes he's ever EXERCISED in his life, let alone taking on a gunman.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

So good. I think this video is a pretty great argument for giving the crazy alt-right types plenty of leash to exercise 1st amendment rights -- give them a little and they'll find a way to hang themselves with it.

With that said, comments / (mild) rebuttals to your post @newtboy:
(my thoughts in italics inline with the quoted post:)

The way some people have written about "destroying" North Korea, it would make you think that we haven't been talking about a weapon of mass destruction which would indiscriminately incinerate women, children, pets, and leave swathes of radioactive land uninhabitable which would then leak mutation/radioactivity into the rest of the world's ecosystem.

Western civilisation has surely succumbed to some kind of mental sickness, turning us all into mindless clones repeating "the greater good" when we get promised large, colourful explosions. When war after war ends in disaster and further misery, we continue to talk about "bringing an end to suffering" everywhere in the world as though it's both a duty, and something we haven't catastrophically screwed up time after time. Worse is the underlying pride in that perceived duty; "We're gonna make their lives better whether they want it or not! OORAHH!"

The moralising about whether or not they deserve it is an exercise in narcissistic god complexes, covered with a veneer of regret, "oh no, we should have gone to war years ago, now it's too late, should we? shouldn't we?" Like it's great fun to discuss whether or not people should burn and rot to death over the course of weeks, from the comfort of your breakfast table back in good ole metropolis.

And if you decide to bomb? Ah well, it had to be done. Yes, it's a terrible burden, the kind of pain that people burning to death will never understand or thank us for. But we'll continue, because we're the hero they need not the one they want.

Trump's handling of the NK situation is a perfect marriage of the worst elements of the usual neoliberal approach (pro- profit & power orientated) and the thuggish exaggerated threat approach favoured by teenagers in playgrounds.

Our own countries are in an absolute SHIT state. With our indifference towards global warming, the developed nations are the most dangerous threat to life on Earth for *every* country. Why do we still have the arrogance to go around discussing how to improve countries that we've never even fucking been to?