>> ^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:

And lastly, many items corn-based are not soda products. It is a food that goes into many products---including the making of corn on the cob.

"I think where the danger comes in with corn is that much of the corn grown now in North America is going into making high fructose corn syrup," Dawson says. "So it's not that corn per se is bad, but it's the sweetener made from corn that gets into many of the foods that Americans are probably consuming too much of, and we now see that showing up as obesity and heart disease and potential for type 2 diabetes."

Obviously the regular soda will be denser because it has more solute. Artificial sweeteners are so potent that they only need to put like 1/100 as much as the amount of sugar that they would put in a regular soda. It would also be very sensitive to the fill level (air bubble size) but I think they're all pretty much the same because they use the same canning equipment.

First, you're not actually challenging the facts of what Obama said in this clip. Second, you're going to have to cite your "quote", since I bet you're overstating what he said.

You are hard pressed to find a speech where Obama DOESN’T pull this rhetorical stunt. But specifically, the example I was thinking was at the Republican retreat in January. I mis-remembered it being about health care, when it was about job creation & stimulus spending. There was some other health care event where he did the same thing, but I can’t remember which one it was. I think it was the summit in March, but I’ll have to research that. Anyway, here’s an Obama-isms like what I'm talking about from the retreat…

OBAMA: “The notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? … The problem is I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.”

OBAMA: “Those job losses took place before any stimulus…could have ever taken into effect. Now, that's just the fact, Mike, and I don't think anybody would dispute that. You could not find an economist who would dispute that…”

What were their names? What are their credentials? When did he talk to them? What did they say? Obama just waves rhetorical magic wands and conjures phantom armies of ‘economists’ who all agree with him when he wants to justify some stream of BS that sluices out of his piehole. Health care, foreign policy, cap & tax, NASA, you name it - he does it. Bank on it. When ANYONE challenges him - Joe the Plumber, a reporter, a politician, a climatalogist, an industry expert - whoever... Obama will pull this trick as his response and just bat them aside. Why? Because he's a childish douche who can't handle it when reasonable people disagree with his baloney.

Third, the CBO said it would reduce the deficit, and reduce the final cost to all Americans relative to the status quo.

During the whole debate process - Obama was claiming it would save money. The CBO disagreed as far back as July of 09, and through February of 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071602242.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/23/plan-sweetened-for-gop-baffles-cbo/

I find it very interesting now that the bill has passed that the CBO can magically rush a favorably report in a couple weeks - even though many of the plan's details are not yet final. Good enough for places like HuffPo I guess, but they conveniently ignore a lot of the bad stuff.

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1524-five-reasons-the-cbo-figures-are-phony

Regardles, Obama’s claims were that it would cost less than 900 billion. It doesn’t. And the point was that Obama goes around bragging about how “every economist” says his plan is great. But that’s untrue. Even economists that are in his back pocket are (at best) saying HCR is kind of a wash, and it takes 20 years to accomplish it - and you can only do it by counting 10 years of taxation for 6 years of benefits. Move out of the realm of Obama administration puppets and there are TONS of 'economists' who stridently disagree with his plans.

Political game at work

I don’t really need to play the political game as I’m in a research position. I’m not trying to manage. However, I am put in a position where I supply data to business leaders, and all too often see the data ignored by “Obama” types who prefer to act on guts, instincts, and opinions – often resulting in millions of dollars in losses because they wouldn't listen to basics. It’s no skin off my nose at work, as I can shrug and move on to the next project. It's dissappointing to see bad decisions made in the headwind of facts at work. In the government it is alarming.

Finally, i just hope (as spawnflagger points out) that they take into consideration all factors, diet soda should be taxed as well in my opinion as artificial sweeteners are potentially worse than sugar.

It makes sense because people don't need to pay the tax, they just need to stop drinking soda, and that's not killing anyone, in fact it's helping them - healthwise anyway.

>> ^aspartam:
Let me find 8 friends and we'll show you...>> ^JenniferBurger:
tame.
what do 9 out of 10 people enjoy?



you wish, artificial sweetener boy. i'll send you a pamphlet on coping with the loss of your penis. you'll have to make photocopies for your friends.

love the spinach joke, though.

The taste of concrete
Is sweetened with blood

*promote

That should be printed on every soda can like warnings on cigarettes.

And apparently diet soda does the same thing by making your body crave the sugar it was denied by the fake sweeteners.

Thanks mintyb, for that bit of inside informatoin, the next time we go to SB's we shall do so more confident with the information you have so graciously provided us wee all....with those choices peggedbea man,dude, that was tough..... cause if yer talkin about some rock-hard vanilla bean or french or yer choice 'a ice cream, and you take and put a layer of that smooooth marshmallow scthoif in the jar and torch it with one a those bananas Foster torches and brown that marshmallow and THEN pit the whipped cream with some 90% Cacacacau chocolate all melted with sweetened condensed nilk and maybe some fresh vanilla bean scraped in that desert baste with maybe some sprinkles of espresso pine nuts, some grated coconut and with some lingham berry sauce for the top, but not the very top....

-"Unglnu'nph k'lyeh r'wnglua hngilu'phth'n, l'yi? Rg'hlia k'gr. F'nath rg'hlia gr'rnua.
("I consume human soul-energy for a living, okay? It's my job. Just shut up and let me do my job.")

-Excerpt from http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Unquotable:Cthulhu

I am sorry if I ever offended you o' horrific one-Please except this collection of tokens from those who would oppose you n' throw in a few virgins and some top-shelf bourbon to sweeten the deal.....Oh and Please spare our village, yadda yadda yadda...

Wow, great point.

(That was sarcasm)

Regional variants are not malapropisms.

Fail.

EDIT: imho you have a poorly tuned sense for analogies.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Oh wow you really seem to know a lot about language. Maybe you can help me with something. I need to refer to a sweetened carbonated beverage but I dont know what to call it. All I have to go by is this map: http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/popvssodamap.gif

Can you help me? Which is correct? As you say, they can't ALL be correct.

Oh wow you really seem to know a lot about language. Maybe you can help me with something. I need to refer to a sweetened carbonated beverage but I dont know what to call it. All I have to go by is this map: http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/popvssodamap.gif

Can you help me? Which is correct? Pop? Soft Drink? Soda? Coke?

orrr, is it determined by region and time? as i suggested before?

>> ^laura:
I know what you're talking about, nomino...in fact coca cola was originally just carbonated sweetened coca tea...but I am 99% sure AC is right. I saw a friend do it.


It also had some kola nut for that extra hit of caffeine. . . and cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_nut#Safety_issues

But if you read on in that article the "wild nocturnal freaks" sound worth it.

I know what you're talking about, nomino...in fact coca cola was originally just carbonated sweetened coca tea...but I am 99% sure AC is right. I saw a friend do it.