And here is the problem in discussions like this. How we define words like rarity, moderation and negligible. The problem i see with this discussion is it seems like its more about winning than understanding. I think we can all agree on whats generaly healthy.

@transmorpher the issue i have is that you have shown yourself to be anti animal product NOT for health reasons necessarily although you are touting that, but for moral reasons. Its hard to buy into your sincerity regarding health when you feel consuming animal products is morally problematic.

And i believe that basing your diet on being plant based (fruits,veg,beans,nuts, very limited processed foods and animal products if any) is by far the best way to go for general health.

This is just my belief based on what ive read and my personal experience that left me in awe of how a healthy diet could make such a difference in my life physically and mentally. You think you know whats up, but then you realize you had no idea after you actually do it. This is my experience with diet.

Wait and see. One of the reasons so many politicians are robotic (ha! @notarobot) is because of soundbites and things taken out of context.

I mean, look at Trump and his joke about asking Russia to find Hillary's emails. I watched more than just the one sentence. It was clearly a joke. Poor taste. Unpresidential. Ill advised. But a joke.

And now it is touted as possible treason. Silliness.

There might be some relaxed honest speech in there, thought to be private, that people are going to make out to be Horrendous and Horrible. Instead of just being someone thinking they could be honest in private.

You watch for it. Remember what I am saying and if I am more prophetic than you. "Unguarded" can sink a political career. But if a politician never allowed to EVER have privacy to be unguarded?

The death of democracy.

Agree with most of this, except the fact that socialism IS a 'plan'. You may not like it, but that's what it is.

I've found that the word socialism is a word that others use to describe Bernie, not what Bernie regularly touts to describe himself. So by your words i wonder if you've been listening to what other people say about him - if you want to know his plan, listen to HIM. I've heard him lay out his plans, i'd bet he has documentation available to check out his ideas.

(rest of this not addressed to you specifically)

There are many valid criticisms of socialism. "No country has ever been successful and socialist" is not one of them, nor is "lol communism". Just because a party or country has the word socialist in the title doesn't make it so - for example, the democratic people's republic of north korea. The national socialist (nazi) party. And if communist is a criticism of Bernie, can we all call Trump a fascist with such glib carelessness? Or Hillary a colonialist, perhaps, with her record on Iraq?

How about, instead of Amos, you open to the book of Luke.

"No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (NLT, Luke 16:13)

Or Matthew

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (NIV, Matthew 6:19-21)

But it's obvious these guys don't actually practice the religion they preach. They're gifted con-men, like most highly-successful American figures who tout their Christianity (looking at you GOP field).

This video is a bit misleading. Very few kids here in Japan travel completely alone to school unless they live in very rural areas (and even then, they probably go with older siblings). As you see later in the clip, most kids go to school together with friends in small groups, at a minimum a pair but sometimes in huge groups. In my neighborhood, at around 8:45 in the morning, you can see virtually the entire local elementary school walking together towards the public school. They might not be under direct adult supervision, but they are rarely alone and there is always an adult nearby because people are usually commuting to work on the same roads/trains that the kids are using to get to school.

And like they said, the reason this can happen is that violent crimes against children such as kidnapping are almost non-existent here. Adults are far more likely to end up missing/dead here. Contrast that with Western countries like the U.S. or Australia and it quickly becomes apparent why people are escorting or bussing their kids to school in those countries.

I will say that there is a negative side to the "independence" they are touting in this video, which is that these same children often run completely free after school with zero adult supervision. Some of them can get a little wild (throwing rocks at passing cars and stuff or making way too much noise in a crowded residential area) but the cultural attitude here is that it's just "kids being kids," although I sometimes suspect that's code for "we don't want to actually have to parent our kids unless someone forces us to."

Yep, I understand and agree with your comment.

I think part of the problem is that people aren't going to the source for their information regarding the outcomes of studies, etc. I think many people see click-bait and end up getting linked to sites that seem legit but almost invariably tout homeopathic remedies, have a "flu beating" supplement or book to sell you or harbour some other ulterior agenda. These sites often quote studies but fail to provide citations.

I'd further argue that since many people have a distrust of corporations/government and most have an instinct to protect themselves and their children, there is a tendency towards confirmation bias when they are doing their research.

With that said, we still need to be aware that new information from studies is surfacing all the time and questions about safety or efficacy should not be ignored.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/06/30/trickle-down-economics-fails-to-deliver-as-promised/

Article discussing the trickle-down idea. Refers to a paper from a respected uni which shows that there is little evidence to believe that it works, and if it does work it a) doesn't work as well as widely touted and b) hardly works at all.

I also read another article from more recent than 2009 from some kind of financial group on or associated strongly with Wall Street itself that concluded even the wealthy see more spending power if their money is more evenly spread; they may have less money in a mathematical sense, but their money will be worth more and provide more because the flow of the economy is so much more active. I'll keep looking and edit if i find it.

In my opinion - and i think Brand's too, though i don't want to put words in his mouth - the motivation to act based upon nothing but profit is the largest and most significant drain on happiness and especially the advancement of us as a people. We need a revolution of principle, a revolution of the mind, we cannot keep on doing what we are doing when it is so clearly not working.

We have been pouring the results of our productivity into bank balances for so long now. If our productivity was represented by food instead of money, we would have been putting corn into a hole in the ground for 30 years and wondering why people are hungry. In a system based on corn, prosperity of a nation is based upon the free and active flow of corn.

I ask this question of you, because i don't know the answer. Do you think that we can continue pouring our productivity into big holes that other people sit on for "whenever they might need it?" Is it reasonable to build a system based on flow, but let huge clumps of it gather and expect everything to keep running quickly and without turbulence?

It just doesn't work anymore. The very rich don't realise it yet because they can afford to pay to avoid it, the quite rich notice it when they sit in traffic for example, but eventually things will become so clogged up that they will have no choice but to notice that there are no quality schools, hospitals, roads, airports, shops nor people to do their shopping, cleaning, cooking and driving. We all benefit, including the rich, if money is put into improving our infrastructure and facilities. We all benefit when productivity is flowing freely and quickly through the system. The opposite of that is called a depression, and it's when people don't have confidence in spending their money... we know that, we accept it, people were repeating it during the recession. How come we can't recognise the polar opposite? We're in a semi-permanent state of inverse depression, where those at the top don't have the means to spend their money, so it doesn't move.

This is an idea that needs to come from grassroots, everyone needs to come together somehow and unify over this idea. Because you can't blame any one individual for taking advantage of their fortunate position on the uneven playing field, or for fighting for a better position on the field. We all need to agree that the playing field has to be even, otherwise eventually the playing field will not be worth using.

I cannot stand this poisonous idea that you cannot ask a company for tax and here's my argument against that:
A lot of people live in the UK and a lot of people want to buy coffee and other assorted goods (starbucks, amazon). Even including tax, there is a lot of money to be made selling to these people. Let's say there is 2 billion pounds in profit available to be made by someone. That's still profit to be made by someone, and whoever offers that service to them under the correct rules makes that money.

The problem is that there's 4 billion to be made without tax, and it's cheaper to buy the politician for a billion to ensure you get the tax breaks. That is the poisoned system that psycho-capitalism has eventually produced... And it's so naive to think otherwise... so naive to think that those with billions of pounds wouldn't buy economists and lawyers, tout the favourable theories, generally spend top money on creating the right environment to make more money. Whether you think more or less tax is a good idea, surely have to agree that whatever the rules are, we adhere to them, or the system that we so carefully designed it around will fail.

Why are people so reticent to believe that we're being duped? No, surely not, it's the government, they can't possibly be lying to us. They stood in front of us, bare-faced, and told us they weren't torturing people, they had intelligence about WMDs, they weren't spying on us all. They prove themselves to be deceitful but like toddlers we trust the adult.

This is song about a nasty breakup, where he's been out drinking away the pain.

Formidable = formidable, or great, and is used in the sense of terrific or amazing.
minable = pathetic, wretched (he sings fort minable, very pathetic, to rhyme with formidable)


lyrics in french:

Formidable, formidable
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables,
Formidable,
Tu étais formidable,
J'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables.

Eh, l'bébé, oups : mademoiselle,
Je vais pas vous draguer, promis, juré,
J'suis célibataire et depuis hier - putain,
J'peux pas faire d'enfants, mais bon, c'est pas... eh, reviens !
5 minutes quoi, j't'ai pas insulté, j'suis poli, courtois,
Et un peu fort bourré et pour les mecs comme moi
Vous avez autre chose à faire, vous m'pourriez vu hier
Où j'étais

Formidable, formidable
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables,
Formidable,
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables.

Eh tu t'es regardé, tu t'crois beau
Parce que tu t'es marié ?!
Mais c'est qu'un anneau, mec, t'emballes pas,
Elle va t'larguer comme elles font chaque fois,
Et puis l'autre fille, tu lui en a parlé ?
Si tu veux je lui dis, comme ça c'est réglé,
Et au p'tit aussi, enfin si vous en avez,
Attends 3 ans, 7 ans et là vous verrez
Si c'est

Formidable, formidable,
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables,
Formidable,
Tu étais formidable, et j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables.

Et, petite, oh, pardon : petit,
Tu sais dans la vie y'a ni méchant ni gentil,
Si maman est chiante, c'est qu'elle a peur d'être mamie,
Si papa trompe maman, c'est parce que maman vieillit, tiens !
Pourquoi t'es tout rouge? Beh, reviens, gamin,
Et qu'est-ce que vous avez tous
A me regarder comme un singe, vous ?
Ah, oui, vous êtes saints, vous,
Bande de macaques !
Donnez moi un bébé singe, il sera

Formidable, formidable
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables,
Formidable,
Tu étais formidable, j'étais fort minable,
Nous étions formidables

....and his assumption (based upon, and I am assuming and am guessing here, some personal grudge against Christianity-at-large) that Westborough Baptist Church represents a large segment of Christianity-at-large, is complete and utter nonsense. They are a fringe-element example, trumpeted and showcased for their abject insanity in media and the internet usually with a view to touting an 'Atheist-is-the-Ultimate-Sanity paradigm.

Yes, to insult you maybe but not intended.

You seem to not be able to make your mind up about what the hell you actually belive in a "Solid" state of mind... you are fluid and that makes no sense.

You go with everyone and agsinst everyone depending on what the situation depicts and with that tout whatever spiritual thing that may go with it.

and enter.

World's strongest man is usually well touted as such, seems like it's always on TV more or less, the heats are very big. Savickas is usually in WSM, but they don't often do world records - at least when it's televised here - because they don't want to strain or overdo anything during a succession of strength competitions, they want to be as strong as possible to just beat the competition in the next one!

Why are we still using the conventional reactors around the world instead of another application?

ANSWER: Military Industrial Complex can't stockpile weapon-grade plutonium using saner means like saaaay, thorium.Thorium-based nuclear power reactors are not in use because they don't serve the purpose of the planet-destroyers.

The current lame duck president and most-likely the next will back construction of more shit plants, as well as tout these conventional types of reactors for the use in "greening" up the planet.

People need to educate themselves perhaps, then demand that the cunts of the world move somewhere off-planet within the next ten years.

Solution? A few suggestions:

Space Catapult
Eradicate the power-hungry and their bloodlines
Legalize Homicide of Politicians/Mafiosi/Organized crime of any kind

No more blue-fin tuna for me...

"Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down"
Illusion and fantasy...total confabulation.

A government is a simple creation really, it uses force to achieve the end goal which is control, not unlike a rapist or a thief-The antithesis of liberty in the example of say, the American government works because force is used by an immoral core of liars and thieves to achieve goals that benefit the few rather than the whole of society. Examples of just how fucked things are at face value VooDooV, why bother to cite the examples that are glaringly obvious to anyone who at their core, is a moral and free individual...pointless and insulting to anyone who can think.

Mind you, infrastructure and social safety nets enhance freedom, but what should the end-goal be? To enhance the moral framework of a society, which has surely not been done so far with the American form of government, on the contrary, we see the fabric of what makes a society prosper and maintain a fairness for all being eroded to serve the interests of a few, through force and control...through civil liberties being chipped-away at through surveillance and more prisons, more laws, more fines and punishments for more people, etc. Deficit spending pays debt forward to further enslave the recipients of services like roads and social welfare programs, higher education, etc. The freedom to make poor choices at a micro and macro level is what the current government is all about, getting worse every year.

Urban sprawl will continue as folks with pipe-dreams tout more green, less energy usage, cleaner burning cars and factories, etc. One 'problem' is addressed by creating one for another somewhere else.

Ever listen to Buckminster Fuller's idea of a 'green' or 'energy efficient society'? It doesn't use ANY of the current models of societal structure, it pretty much SCRAPS them all for a trans-formative way of moving forward. The old models are shit if they accomplish them through force and control of human activity. YOU don't live in a democratic system, in case you have been asleep for your entire life, democracy is only a fucking word, a concept not unlike any 'ism' created by humans in the past 3000-7000 years.

The financial structure of the United States is inherently evil. It can not be made fair and moral for everyone, it wasn't designed to. It is designed to serve the few at the top, with enforcers and regulators at the bottom-tier of their system. The government is NOT inherently evil but it has been hijacked by cunts.

Just because you think you know how politicians should perform, does not make it happen that way. Sane health care system? Nope. Maybe for the privileged classes-What they hand the masses is complete shit. National debt? Foreign policy? How would YOU do it? Then that's probably saner than the way it's being run, innit? Government is not needed for ANY of these aspects of a civil and moral society to function. All it takes is moral and sane judgement and agreement at solutions and for folks to voluntarily subscribe to these actions, without force, without police, without armies, etc.

Many more examples too many to pontificate upon, many variables of systems, all of which could function to afford everyone freedom and liberty, WITHOUT a government. The government is a construct just like everything else man creates-It takes willing humans to make them either function efficiently, or to scrap them for something new and improved.

I'm no libertarian, no anarchist, just a practical human being.
There are more reasons for scrapping the world system of government than there are for maintaining them, you simply refuse to see any other way THAN systems of government.

Mankind can self-govern if it does so with a formidable and sound moral compass...Is mankind doing that? It can also make the entire planet it's playground if it chooses to do so...Is mankind doing this??
FUCK NO!

Someone had to show their ass and who the FUCK gives a rat's ass about Bill O'Reilly (insert Maddow here)? Keep drinking the media's Kool Aide™ and side with whatever schlock-programmer tells you to.

The world has plenty of media whores and the lackeys line-up in lock step to tout the flavor of how to be completely clueless and distracted.