I, for one, welcome our new bovine overlords.

Yes, she mentioned allergies, however underlying these allergies are much more serious problems such as cancer (which she mentioned). Her speech was off the mark and the science was bad in a few places, however the underlying concept is accurate. In addition to this, you link articles showing that there are few or no studies showing the dangers of proteins such as BGH, however her point was that there are no human studies done to prove that it is safe. A 1950's study showing BGH doesn't help dwarves grow doesn't prove it isn't linked with human disease. Also, while her statements about BGH don't seem very scientifically credible, she does actually point out the real problem, the link that BGH has with complications such as mastitis, and the subsequent need for large doses of antibiotics.

>> ^marinara:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679775/
doesn't mention frankenfoods at all
"top allergy in U.S.: milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts (e.g., walnuts, almonds, cashews, pistachios, pecans), wheat, soy, fish, and shellfish"
(http://www.foodallergy.org/downloads/FoodAllergyFactsandStatistics.pdf)
fish shellfish treenuts peanuts eggs aren't frankenfoods, neither is milk even though the TED talker says it is.
(ok my argument here doesn't prove anything)
BGH is nasty for different reasons, like causing girls to enter puberty years earlier.
unless it doesn't
"Is bST a hormone?
Yes. However, there are two types of hormones: steroids and proteins. bST is a protein hormone. Protein hormones have no activity when taken by mouth, while steroid hormones do have activity. For example, insulin is a protein hormone.
Insulin has no activity if taken orally. Therefore, a diabetic has to have injections of insulin. Like insulin, the protein hormone bST has no activity when taken by mouth. In contrast, hormones used in birth control pills are steroids and therefore are effective when taken by mouth. Again, bST has no effect when taken by mouth.
Furthermore, studies were conducted in the 1950's to determine if children suffering from dwarfism could be given direct injections of high levels of bST to stimulate growth. The conclusion of the study was that somatotropin from cows is not active in humans even if injected. Why? The structure of human somatotropin is so different from bovine somatotropin, that injections of high levels of bovine somatotropin into children have no influence on growth and development."
from monsanto's website
actually NYT says milk does not cause puberty in girls
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/08real.html
finally here's a real long press release that says that really, no scientific studies have ever been done to link animal hormones to human health problems. Animal products have been tested, but no human studies.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679775/
doesn't mention frankenfoods at all

"top allergy in U.S.: milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts (e.g., walnuts, almonds, cashews, pistachios, pecans), wheat, soy, fish, and shellfish"
(http://www.foodallergy.org/downloads/FoodAllergyFactsandStatistics.pdf)
fish shellfish treenuts peanuts eggs aren't frankenfoods, neither is milk even though the TED talker says it is.
(ok my argument here doesn't prove anything)

BGH is nasty for different reasons, like causing girls to enter puberty years earlier.

unless it doesn't
"Is bST a hormone?

Yes. However, there are two types of hormones: steroids and proteins. bST is a protein hormone. Protein hormones have no activity when taken by mouth, while steroid hormones do have activity. For example, insulin is a protein hormone.

Insulin has no activity if taken orally. Therefore, a diabetic has to have injections of insulin. Like insulin, the protein hormone bST has no activity when taken by mouth. In contrast, hormones used in birth control pills are steroids and therefore are effective when taken by mouth. Again, bST has no effect when taken by mouth.

Furthermore, studies were conducted in the 1950's to determine if children suffering from dwarfism could be given direct injections of high levels of bST to stimulate growth. The conclusion of the study was that somatotropin from cows is not active in humans even if injected. Why? The structure of human somatotropin is so different from bovine somatotropin, that injections of high levels of bovine somatotropin into children have no influence on growth and development."
from monsanto's website

actually NYT says milk does not cause puberty in girls
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/08real.html

finally here's a real long press release that says that really, no scientific studies have ever been done to link animal hormones to human health problems. Animal products have been tested, but no human studies.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

and i will add that scientists, while doing some amazing things, also routinely kill people.
pcb's, bovine growth hormone, nuclear radiation, nuclear bombs, bio-warfare, missile technology, ddt, malathion, agent orange, you name it, scientists, in the name of profit, have compiled a laundry list of chemicals, compounds, and weapons that accidentally or purposely kill people.
Western medicine, in their wisdom, also routinely kill people. it's called "iatrogenic death" - or, death by doctor. One of the most common ways to die.
Monsanto exists to make a profit... period.

Very cool. Too bad he won't be able to sell it to bovine America.

>> ^choggie:

The real problem with food available in stores today is genetic and bio-engineering. Monsanto is the worst, others not as large follow, as laws are made to accommodate their monster corporate interests. The big M created and legislated the use of bovine growth hormones.
Their lawyers have successfully destroyed heirloom seed availability to the public as well as farmers whose families for generations provided food for this country and the world. They are trying to patent the fucking pig as well-their empire is insidious and deadly to our present health and state of being and our futures.
This country does not need health care reform-It needs to eliminate insurance companies and destroy Monsanto. Back to basics, monkeys.

I'm weary of the idea that bio-engineered foods are a bad thing. In fact, they allow the production of foods in conditions that aren't ideal for food growth or they maximize production in limited spaces. I am, of course, referring to produce. Animals might be a different story, but I really don't know.

Overall I'd say that bio-engineering has saved lives.

Look up Norman Borlaug.

The real problem with food available in stores today is genetic and bio-engineering. Monsanto is the worst, others not as large follow, as laws are made to accommodate their monster corporate interests. The big M created and legislated the use of bovine growth hormones.

Their lawyers have successfully destroyed heirloom seed availability to the public as well as farmers whose families for generations provided food for this country and the world. They are trying to patent the fucking pig as well-their empire is insidious and deadly to our present health and state of being and our futures.

This country does not need health care reform-It needs to eliminate insurance companies and destroy Monsanto. Back to basics, monkeys.

You know, it's almost better listening to Bill Hicks without having to see him mugging.
Also, "Bovine America">=LOL

Yeah but...Merkin cheese all has cow pus in it. Because of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone. Mmmmm, pizza!

Sorry I can't stop myself...

At first I thought the whole point for this video "use more cowbell" was entirely a result of the bovines (bovii, sic, ) dancing right before it.

Feel free to flame away; my soul is as dead as her eyes.

*starts playing piano, tells Carl to stop fucking up my act*

//aww off to page two I see

Bodacious

by Primus


Who's gonna ride Bodacious?
Who's gonna tame him down?
Look out for Bodacious,
he's bound to hold his ground.
Here comes Bodacious,
ya'll just step aside.
Big and bad Bodacious
takes a toll from those who ride.

Bodacious am a whole lotta' bull
over nineteen hundred pounds.
He's born in Galry, Oklahoma
and he's the baddest sonsabitch around
if a Burma bull ever were a super star
then Bodacious just might be.
He's a cream colored, beefy brawn,
full-fledged, four footed bovine celebrity.

Who's gonna ride Bodacious?
Who's gonna tame him down?
Look out for Bodacious,
he's bound to hold his ground.
Here comes Bodacious,
ya'll just step aside.
Big and bad Bodacious
takes a toll from those who ride.

Young Bo met a man named Tuff Hedeman
at the start of his buckin' spree
and Tuff became one of the few to make the whistle
back in Nineteen Ninety Three.

Tuff tried to ride Bo again at the finals
in Nineteen Ninety Five.
Bodacious had got a little older and wiser
Tuff barely came out alive.

SOLO

Bodacious am a whole lotta' bull
over nineteen hundred pounds.
He's born in Galry, Oklahoma
and he's the baddest sonsabitch around
if a Burma bull ever were a super star
then Bodacious just might be.
He's a cream colored, beefy brawn,
full-fledged, four footed bovine celebrity.

Who's gonna ride Bodacious?
Who's gonna tame him down?
Look out for Bodacious,
he's bound to hold his ground.
Here comes Bodacious,
ya'll just step aside.
Big and bad Bodacious
takes a toll from those who ride.

Who's gonna ride Bodacious?
Who's gonna tame him down?
Look out for Bodacious,
he's bound to hold his ground.
Here comes Bodacious,
ya'll just step aside.
Big Badass Bodacious
will take a big hunk outta your hide

May your bovine blood lust never be sated.

Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, September 09, 2009

(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.

This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.

The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market.

You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)

Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services -- i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby -- which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.

If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."

Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the planet anymore? Go green!

(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.

Why does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"?

Why not have a "trigger" allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?

Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful, or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious.

Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn -- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger, we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing "taxpayer").

To make our housing "public option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us.

Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies -- which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.

Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)

On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.

On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.

If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?

Cause the only way a bovine should die is the slow strangulation hold of a lion, or to be ripped apart alive piece by piece by a wolf.

It sounds like your crazy friend hasn't heard about the food chain or bovine university!