Haven't watched the video, but if he's talking about worldwide, he'd be accurate.

Touching.

However, and I know I am going to catch absolute hell over this but it needs to be said, there is a legal method in place for immigration. You might not agree with it, you might think it needs to be relaxed to allow more people in, you might think it is restrictive because it costs money and time, but the fact remains that there is a process for it in place.

Of course it is terribly sad that people who want to be in this country to improve their standard of living can't simply walk across a border to get here. I wish it could be that way, but it can't. People need to be checked into to see that there is no hidden issues that will arise once they are here. They need to be relatively able to find a job so that they are not a drain on others. This is a worldwide truth, as there is no country that does not have some method to process immigrants, many far more restrictive than ours. For instance, Australia will slap your ass on a desolate fucking island if you try to immigrate illegally and they can't find a place to return you to in a cost effective manner.

My own opinion on the matter is that we need to have a concerted discussion on how we are going to handle immigration requests and then have a nationwide vote upon it. At the very minimum it should be a statewide vote in states that border another country, as they are generally the ones most affected by costs related to illegal immigration. But until that time, I have to look at this video as a mother who is willing to commit a felony to make sure her daughter has a better life.

Which is laudible, definitely, but we punish other people who break the law to try to improve their or their children's lives. If I had children and I committed a felony crime to improve their lives, I would go to jail. How is someone who came here illegally better than me and therefore immune to the same laws I am held to?

*ban
DENORA female saxophonist singer DJ worldwide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybjR43KbzGU

*ban
DENORA female saxophonist singer DJ worldwide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWChK_9MBBc

I do agree that unilateral disarmament is a difficult thing to achieve, but there are other arguments as to why it should be pursued. I am sure we agree on a lot of things on this subject, but let me at least put the other side out there:

1. America as the over achieving nation in the world has a duty to lead by example. How can the country with the largest nuclear arsenal expect other countries to start the process that we all signed up to? Hey France, why didn't you get rid of your 87 nukes? Well America, why haven't you touched that pile of 500? (making up numbers here to illustrate the point)

2. The US isn't worried about Best Korea nuking them because they would need a staging platform and a functional ballistic missile. They can be launched from subs, but NK isn't really your worry there. The most developed nations are the concern, and if you could get an agreement it could happen, with peacekeepers and mutually open inspections, and pressure on smaller countries to abide or be trade embargoed to stop them (which the west does/has done already). Unlikely as things are right now, i agree.

3. We have ageing equipment housing extremely dangerous explosives. They require a huge amount of maintenance and whatnot, costing billions. The UK has to replace their system soon to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds. Imagine what kind of alternative modern anti-nuclear defence system we could develop using all that money and all our technology? That way we could be safe from nukes without using nukes and it would cost less in the long run.

Also if you claim your weapons as part of a defence, it's a bit of a giveaway that you're bullshitting if you then go off around the world antagonising other countries, knowing that they can't really fight back. So i think in fairness we should crack open that self-defence argument and see what percentage of it is referring to "a good offence".

Having said all that, binning all the US nukes overnight wouldn't be a great idea. The UK would be less of a target and safer without nukes imo, but the US would probably make the world a lot safer just by having less.

Let's be honest here, the amount of nukes we have is preposterous. No one could possibly have any reason to use that many, the potential for absolute worldwide devastation is far too high to need that many - you could potentially finish the world off in a nuclear winter, according to the average figures given, in about 100 'small' nukes. Not 100 each per country, but 100 total worldwide.

And remember, that doesn't mean you can use 90 and be safe. The figure 100 was enough to likely cause a global famine by causing temperature drops leading to crop failures. That doesn't account for extinction of animals and the devastation of the natural balance (which would lead to our eventual extinction) which can be wildly unpredictable. You could shoot 40 at a country, win the conflict, and cause the starvation of millions+ in your own (and other) countries for the next 20 odd years..... or worse.

I think the basic problem for liberals in America is a numbers game:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

Liberals had the illusion of being the majority because certain recent victories they had culturally and politically, when in fact they were still in the minority . They tried to silence the majority, who complied, as the man said, and then voted.

The power of the vote in America is greater than decades of social conditioning; it can completely change the direction of a country politically and more importantly, ideologically. That is what is happening here, which is a course correction by the majority which will lead to some diminishment of liberal thought in America. It may not last long, however, depending on the character and nature of the Trump presidency.

Liberalism worldwide seeks to change the value system of every nation in the world. The stated goal is a one world government without borders. This is also exactly what the bible predicted would happen. Whether it happens through liberalism, or another ism, there will eventually be a one world government overseen by the Antichrist.

I can't really disagree with that, but it has to be said that the issues that are not brought up are distinctly non-partisan--that is, the issues that are not brought up are the ones that are disadvantageous to both parties.

For instance, no one talks about gerrymandering anymore. It clearly benefits both parties, but it is destroying our political system by creating disincentives to working across the aisle with the other party.

In my view, there are three major structural reforms in the US government that need to be addressed: 1) Gerrymandering 2) Campaign finance and 3) regulatory capture. Of these three, only the second one is addressed by either candidate, but not in a satisfying way.

We need major reforms in healthcare and economic wealth distribution, and we need to prepare ourselves for certain worldwide economic changes due to technological innovation and globalization, but until we deal with those three major issues, we won't be able to make any headway.

Here's the thing... They CAN do that, and they CAN get away with it.

Seriously, what is anyone going to do about it? They did it, now they're rich, now they have powerful friends, now you can't get them.

You think Clinton will fix this? You think even Trump will fix this? Why didn't he release his tax returns I wonder?

Shoulda gone for Bernie. We should go for Corbyn. But you didn't, and we won't, and that's how we end up in managed worldwide decline.

*ban
Dol-Dek D'Olisy Investigation International & worldwide Lux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RevbyuoQdU

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)

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

I have a few questions if anyone would care to satisfy my curiosity, I've seen/read a lot of stuff and I don't know what the reliable sources are for this. I'll list them so they're easy to answer, and I'm not trying to imply stuff or score any points, I just want to know. Sorry if any of this is tin-foil hat rubbish but I've been unable to sleep recently and ended up watching a lot of old crap, in a weakened mental state.

1 - Were those people with her yesterday, and does she often travel with, a nurse and a doctor?
2 - What's with the coughing and sicking up green globules into the glass of water? Never seen anything like that green stuff before.
3 - Did she need help getting up some stairs a while ago, or were they misleading photos?
4 - Why did no one react to her going completely limp? I can understand the well trained entourage explanation, but they didn't even look around to check for danger, considering their VIP went lifeless.
5 - Why did they take a collapsed elderly woman with pneumonia to an apartment rather than a hospital?
6 - Why say it was heat stroke?
7 - Has she really been pulling out of a lot of campaign events?

To be honest, I don't find her collapsing a worry at all. I've collapsed due to illness and I'm healthy and fit. What i do find strange is the reaction and lying about it. Somehow that makes me question the other things, but there you have it - my questions.

I think Clinton and Trump are equally bad. Clinton represents everything that disgusts me about politics - the 1%, 'the establishment', privilege and modern society, she will continue to sign off murdering innocent people and destroying the ecosystem for profit worldwide. Trump is.. well, offensive, sexist, racist, but i think only because it makes him popular, like a school bully, but he doesn't understand the new platform he has or what effect his words have on how people behave, and all in all that makes him a cowardly, selfish, egotistical weasel who we're about to give the keys to everything. Either way, we are fucked.

In other good news, bicycling, wind power, and solar power continue to go up in the US and worldwide, while birth rates continue to go down.

If you read my other reply two posts up, it's clear that I'm not left leaning.

Your linked slaughter statistics are for the USA alone, and as far as I know GLOBAL warming affects the whole globe....so we should count the global amount of farmed animals.

Your statistics also only count slaughtered animals, and not farmed animals like dairy cows, which there are more of at any one time. Around 9 billion dairy cows in the USA. So already in the US alone we have 13.9 billion farmed animals(4.9b slaughtered + 9b dairy cows). It's not hard to see worldwide that figure reaching 50 billion.
And that's still not counting a bunch of animals (read the small print of your link).

The thing with methane too, it traps over 29 times more heat that co2....and most trees don't absorb methane. So even if we had enough trees to absorb co2 (which we don't) then all of methane from farmed animals would remain up there anyway.


80% of tree's aren't gone, 80 % of forests are gone:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20much%20of%20the%20world%27s%20forests%20have%20been%20destroyed


How much renewable energy tax do you pay BTW? Where I live I pay $0. But the government does give some $4 billion of our tax money to the coal industry. So if anything the big tax scheme is from non-renewable.


EDIT:
Oh I forgot the most important bit. Scientists can tell between natural co2 and man-made co2. They have differing amounts of carbon. So it's actually really easy to tell between how much carbon dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere vs naturally occurring carbon dioxide.


Also lions and bears are going to live in nature regardless of human activity - we've added 50 billion large, methane producing animals to the world that wouldn't be there otherwise. Granted the destruction of habitats might have reduced the lion and bear populations, but not by 50 billion. Perhaps a few million at most.

*dead -- "This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it on copyright grounds..."