at 1:07 the guy on the right is having impure thoughts...

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^teebeenz:
"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

But is that true?


As they said, based on current data... yes.

>> ^teebeenz:

"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501


But is that true? Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose when broken down, but is sucrose actually processed in that order: split the disaccharide and then digest individual sugars? (Your link says that this is the case. And it says unsplit disaccharides stay in the gut. What percentage does this happen to?) Is there proof that fructose alone is bad and that it's not the imbalance of excess fructose vs. sucrose that's bad, like omega-6 vs. omega-3 fatty acids? Is fructose from Coke, mixed with carbonic acid, processed the same way, at the same speed, as fructose from apple juice?

"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

>> ^blankfist:

@Stormsinger. Whether or not a corporate commercial plays in a country has little to do with a its level of freedom, but more about social attitudes toward its subject matter, I'd conclude.
Though, if you want to talk about who controls what can be broadcasted in this "free" country, the FCC is the government organization that regulates that and keeps the naughty impurities from our tvs.


Oh I'm fully aware of the legal "keeper of the innocence". And I admit to stretching the popular definition of freedom a bit. But I have to say that I consider freedom to be more than just the legal environment...social attitudes and restrictions are definitely part of that nebulous term, as far as I'm concerned. Especially when they act as censors on what is allowed to be aired by the media. Frankly, the FCC is unlikely to make waves about this type of commercial...but we're still too socially backwards to let a company show it, no matter how amusing it is.

@Stormsinger. Whether or not a corporate commercial plays in a country has little to do with a its level of freedom, but more about social attitudes toward its subject matter, I'd conclude.

Though, if you want to talk about who controls what can be broadcasted in this "free" country, the FCC is the government organization that regulates that and keeps the naughty impurities from our tvs.

Well, considering the invisible sky daddy only wants sexually immature boys ("protected sex and contraception, icky!") running his church, this isn't very surprising.

Moreover, with the consistent misogyny (non-virgins are impure whores) and homophobia (adult buttsecks is evil!), what are they left with? The "pure" and innocent youths the have under their power.

>> ^MaxWilder:
Thou shalt not feed children refined sugar and highly processed foods.


Why? Refined sugar is better for you than unrefined or raw sugar. Refined sugar has had the impurities removed. Unrefined sugar is full of dirt and grit and rat wee and all kinds of stuff you wouldn't want to feed your kids. Furthermore it still metabolises into the same chemicals as those that cause all the problems associated with refined sugar - tooth decay, diabetes, obesity...

A gas explosion recently killed 9 people in America, nuclear doesn't have a single confirmed death in the US.
Coal is much, much worse.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.



Remember this fly ash accident, imagine how much radioactivity was dumped over the country then:

Fly ash flood covers acres
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/23/fly-ash-flood-covers-acres/

Workers face "several weeks' worth of work" to clean up 3.1 million cubic feet of fly ash dumped across hundreds of acres after a retention pond collapsed early Monday morning at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston steam plant.



More:

Bush administration hid coal ash dumps' true cancer threat
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/05/bush-administration-hid-coal-ash-dumps-true-cancer-threat.html
The Bush administration was reluctant to release information that suggested an alarmingly high cancer risk for people who live near landfills and lagoons used to store coal ash waste -- and now it turns out that it released only part of the data, hiding for years the full extent of the health threat from poorly regulated coal ash disposal.



More
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fly_ash

Tags for this video have been changed from 'pat, condell, atheism, religion' to 'pat condell, atheism, religion, faith, respect, beatdown, impure thought' - edited by gwiz665

>> ^quantumushroom:
1) USA is not a democracy.


Correct. It is a constitutional republic.


2) Torture is illegal against American citizens and uniform-wearing soldiers of other nations' armed forces.


Wrong. The Bill of Rights does not differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. It only speaks of 'persons'. It embodies certain essential rights common to all men (and women) regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or nationality. True, it only pertains to actions taken within US borders, and against US citizens outside of the US. However, as signatories to the UN Convention against Torture, we have agreed that agents of the US shall not torture.


3) Terrorists fit neither description of #2, therefore legal protections do not apply no matter how badly the ACLU wants them to. The same legal charade was attempted by leftists during WW2, scrambling to give German saboteurs the protection of the American legal process. It failed and the Germs were rightly executed (people had way more common sense + balls back then).



Funny story about them saboteurs--you must be talking about Operation Pastoreus, which gives us the rich legacy of secret military tribunals. The thing is that we would have known NOTHING about the plan, if not for the fact that its leader, intent on betraying the Nazis from the start, turned himself in to the FBI and told them everything they needed to know (he actually had to travel from NYC to Washington, DC to do this, as the FBI Office in NYC hung up on him, thinking him a crank). For this essential service, the leader who had turned on his own people and spared countless American lives was thrown in a cell with the other seven, and sentenced to die. Hoover, director of the FBI, felt that the stroke of luck that had benefitted them in this case didn't play as well in the media as a tireless army of FBI agents, knocking down doors. The leader had been tried separately, and the military judges had been informed about his vital role in breaking the case, and STILL he was sentenced to die. It was only after the details of the case were released that his sentence was commuted. Instead of being treated as a hero, he and another German 'spy' who had turned on their Nazi masters were deported back to Germany, where they were treated as traitors.

So, you know, try another one.


4) While rich in history, most of the rest of the world is quite lame...unstable, squalid, rife with tribal hatreds going back centuries. Other governments' depths of corruption make the USA's look like a school play about tooth decay. Europe is graying and its traditions and culture dying. It would be better off mummified than Muslimfied.


"To save the village, we had to destroy the village." How well did that mentality work in Vietnam?


5) Obama is a laughingstock to America's sworn enemies and is played like a harp by all manner of sociopathic dictators around the globe. He's made America seem as weak as a legless kitten.


Yawn.



6) The USA will never get proper credit or respect for the good it does in the world (at least, not from American liberals). Part of being The Big Dog is being challenged. When China eventually takes over as Big Dog, the rest of the world will long for the good old days.


You know, this is what's so funny about 'free market' ideologues. Their belief that the free market will right all wrongs seems to falter when the market starts favoring an outcome that's much less favorable to them, whether it be the speaking of Spanish, or the growth of non-Christian faiths, or hegemony under a different overlord. Once that happens, the free market must be ignored, and nations toppled.


7) Peanut-head Eric Holder already tried to raise a legal stink about torture and was rebuked. Navy SEALS are waterboarded as part of their training and only 3 of the terrorists were waterboarded, for the purpose of gaining intel, not torture for torture's sake.


Democracies AND constitutional republics do not believe that torture is permissible, regardless of outcome. The ends do NOT justify the means.



Since torture "doesn't work" the logical alternative is to kill all terrorists/insurgents on the battlefield without mercy. Yet this approach is also poo-pooed.


How is this logical? I know--I shouldn't feed the troll here, but I've got some time on my hands.


9) Liberal logic eats its own tail. Dependent on moral relativism to exist, it cannot by its own definition ever claim a lasting moral high ground.


Capitalism eats its own tail. It begets inequities that yield monopolies, and once we have monopolies, capitalism collapses. Communism eats its own tail. In fact, every ideological concept, when taken to its purest form, contains the seeds of its own destruction. The thing about liberalism is that, unlike conservativism, it is endlessly questioning its own relevance and truthfulness. You would, of course, see this as weakness, but like steel, tempering drives out impurities and leads to a stronger material.

Sure Winstonfield, sure.

From dictionary.com

fas⋅cism  [fash-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Also, from their cultural dictionary.

fascism [(fash-iz-uhm)]

A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.

So you see Winfeld - as much as you will try to whine about nazi's being left-wing, you're wrong. Keep whining though, if it makes you feel better.

I was born to see two thousand years
Of man's effect upon the planet
Extinction seems to be a plausible risk
Whatever happens well I'm part of all this

My life I've been waiting for this moment
All my life I've been waiting for this moment to come

(Chorus)
Taste the salt of my tears
Take the wealth of my years
Singing in the millennium with you
Resolutions will show
Old ways don't seem to know
Singing in the millennium with you

Fire burn all our uncertainties
Water wash away impurities
Contradictions and predictions abound
Yes I believe that we can turn it around

My life I've been waiting for this moment
My life I've been waiting for this moment to come

(Chorus)

My life I've been waiting for this moment
All my life I've been waiting for this moment
All my life I've been waiting for this moment to come

(Chorus X3 to fade)

Mormons believe that the body is a temple, which is why they're not allowed to drink alcohol, consume caffeine, "hot drinks", tobacco, etc. (although junk food, and pretty much any legal drug is ok).

Why then, I wonder, is it such a horrible thing to see it? They've got no problem erecting those huge god-awful temples all over the place, so their membership can go there to get married (for $$$$$) and buy their way into heaven.

Can't someone put a sweatshirt on those fucking things? Their massively engorged steeples cause impure stirrings in my loins.

do some islamic cultures use islam to oppress women?...yes.
is this truly indicative of the original teachings of islam?...no.

You know, it would be interesting to find out more about these elusive "original teachings" of different religions, they always seems to be perfectly aligned with modern, secular, liberal values of the most gentle kind. I guess the "original" islamists knew exactly how to ignore the right verses of the Quran, like the ones describing how a womans word is worth half that of a mans word, or how they are generally impure and have to stay away from funerals, prayer etc

Because, you know, when I read the Quran, I see none of this liberal stuff shining through, on every page it seems to demand one hundred percent submission to the one true god, and descibe how unbelievers who have heard of this god (and rejected it) will burn in hell forever, unless they later embrace Islam. I seem to remember Jews being compared to "Apes and pigs", Christians and unbelievers being treated as some for of disease you'd better avoid, women as birthmachines that we (the readers, who are always men) must pretend to own and raise like we do with cattle.

If I didnt know better, I think I'd describe the Quran as a book that , if you actually followed it teachings, you'd look like Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and nothing like a liberal leftie at all.