So, plant based eaters have Vegan superpowers that prevent colon cancer?

You ridicule my take on statistics, which you are wrong about as the 18% chance still ends up being a 1% chance OVER A LIFETIME, but you think that being Vegan means you will never experience pre-cancerous polyps or full blown colon cancer?

ANYONE can get colon cancer, Vegans still have a lifetime risk of 5% like everyone else. Even the link I quoted says they simply recommend choosing fish, poultry, or beans instead of red meat and processed meat. They DON'T say "GO VEGAN AND NO CANCERS FOREVER LOL".

That is why this is propaganda. The PCRM and it's lead Vegan doctor founder would have you believe that if you go Vegan that all of life's ails would simply be gone. You will never get those nasty sicknesses the meat eating brutes get...without acknowledging that diet is NEVER going to overrule genetic predisposition for certain ailments and conditions. It certainly might help very slightly in the long run, but the PCRM would have you believe that eating meat is equivalent to chainsmoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day, ie, you WILL get cancer if you aren't Vegan.

Trust me, I also understand having people that you love dying sucks. I've lost my entire biological family and many of my wife's family due to various reasons. All I have left is my wife's family and my biological mother. But I also realize that every single person is going to die. I also know that a lot of times that death isn't going to make sense or even be fair. You might be able to salvage a few years by restricting yourself from the pleasures of life, but statistically you still could die in a shitty way.

That is why I don't agree with the Vegan outlook or the ideal they promote that going Vegan will give you the longest lasting life with all happiness. There are many other diets that could provide the same minor edge in extending life, but Vegans typically refuse to acknowledge that. I view them as a pseudo-science cult, much like Breatharians.

No sir....we KNOW vegans are lying.
What I can't understand is why.
There's plenty of evidence that plant based (not vegetarian or vegan) diets are the healthiest choice.
There's plenty of evidence that vegan diets are almost always lacking in nutrition....they can be healthy but it's a full time and expensive proposition.
You are wrong, studies on cultures that eat large amounts of fish show it's good, and most weren't funded by the fishing industries. The Massai are pretty healthy too, and they eat and drink beef, blood, and milk almost exclusively. They have been studied extensively. You seem to always feel compelled to exaggerate enough to be wrong.

Facepalm
Bob, you implied, then actually said driving a car is a guaranteed right like voting, now you want to pivot away from that stupidity and hope you won't get called out on the bait and switch of your failed argument.
Just admit you were wrong. Stop the mental gymnastics trying to twist your way out of your ridiculous factually deficient argument....you aren't good at them.

This latest ridiculousness has already been utterly decimated above, it was a really poorly thought out ploy you tried. So sad.

Are you really so deluded that you believe every adult in my country has a car and license to operate it? It's certainly not the case in your country.

Aaaahahahahaha! I actually fell off my chair. Thanks for a good laugh.


Sir, you must not understand the meanings of those words, because you are as illogical and untruthful (because you illogically choose to believe known liars) as I think it's possible to be.
You are so unconcerned with truth, I don't think I've ever seen you even once admit you were wrong when the lie you repeated was debunked, and on average you have that opportunity at least weekly.

Democrats followed the rule of law.
Republicans want a last minute FBI investigation, Democrats have wanted one for months.

No corroborating witnesses were allowed, that's different from there being none.

Flake and those with him, at least 3 at last count and growing.

Who told you it's a repressed memory? She's been talking about it for 6 years, which is documented, and there's no evidence she ever repressed it.

Ha! Instantly switching from 'didn't happen' to 'it's normal behavior' . No, I'm no saint, but I never forced myself on another person, and I don't lie about my past in order to get a lifetime job judging others.
Yes, sexual fumblings that equate to sexual attacks are disqualifying. If you think that's normal or proper, you likely are guilty. I do want to live in a society where sexual predators must answer for their misdeeds, not walk away without consequences. You have daughters, don't you? It's ok with you if some boys push them into a room and grope them forcefully, you'll just tell them those boys were immature, so the assault/ rape attempt doesn't count?

He isn't a justice yet, and this isn't a trial. It's a job interview. Not being advanced to the highest court is not losing his career. Having his past examined before a lifetime appointment is not a criminal trial. What BS.

Are you saying there aren't right wing candidates that don't have sexual assaults in their backgrounds? I guess we'll just have to put off filling the seat until a left leaning judge is nominated then....by the next president to follow precedent.

Kavanaugh's morality is being successfully questioned and so clearly is not above reproach. You're wrong on both counts.

Please. The Cartmanesque mental gymnastics you're doing are professional level.

No one said running is legal or right, I noted how it's understandable given the likely outcome of being detained, guilty or not. I also noted how deadly force is not an acceptable response to fleeing. It's far from the only option. Edit: I also noted that, if one is responsible for other people's overreaction that goes both ways, and they would be responsible for the outcome of not fleeing.....including false charges, beatings, and death.

Yes, if they, and other officers, and good Samaritan bystanders, and helicopters, and the radio can't catch up, and they aren't posing an ongoing significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others, the answer isn't shoot them in the back, it is
Let
Them
Go.

See, you're wrong again, I could say it. ;-) Not only that, the law says it too.
The answer you seem to want is "go ahead and kill them if they won't comply", that's immoral and illegal and completely ignores the reality of what happens to many innocent people when they do comply.

@newtboy,
without racial preferencing FOR white kids
I know for a fact though that in Canada any law, policy or practice that in any way, shape or form stated that has been abolished long ago. Any new ones would be destroyed in court immediately and without question. I've always understood the US to be the same, is that not correct? Is there anywhere in existence in US law, or policies that discrimination based upon race, outside of affirimative action, is ever allowed to exist?

I was convinced enough that the US was like Canada in this regard that back when Obama was president I had someone tell me about a Breitbart report claiming anti-white racism being dictated directly from the President's office. I barely bothered to look for evidence to disprove such a blatant lie from a known extremist propaganda rag. It's hard to express my shock/discouragement to hear that very same refrain, not from a right winger, but from the sources on the left adamant about the necessity of it...

I don't know how else to say this without repeating myself, but you can't achieve equality with racism. It is a situation where even if you are right, your still wrong. Putting actual race based discrimination into official party policy, and now apparently even into law is no longer something society is willing to tolerate. Doubly so when their children are the ones being discriminated against. The people will vote you out of office. You can kiss swing states goodbye. They will stack the Supreme Court against you to challenge and throw out the discriminatory law as unconstitutional.

You are fighting a battle you can not win. You are wrong to think that solving the problem of underfunded schools in bad socioeconomic regions is the harder nut to crack. Maintaining a law and systematic racism against whites to 'balance' the lack of opportunity is much harder, it's being dismantled already because people will not tolerate it. Demanding that university's open up XX spots for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids, regardless of race is already normal practice here in Canada and everyone can get on board. Doing it for race though, humans just don't work that way. The only times that's been successfully maintained is through force of numbers or military strength.

I hope you are wrong. A few countries have announce goals for increasing the percentage of electric cars on their roads. The reduction in sales for gas and diesel cars should lead to less demand for gas... maybe...

So wait....are you saying we should overlook numerous war crimes and international kidnapping because it was done in the name of fighting an enemy we created that never posed the threat we claimed he did, but was a dictatorial asshole that killed and tortured thousands (making it ok for us to emulate him), and ignore that our actions also killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized the middle east, creating Daesh, starting numerous civil wars, now disastrously effecting all Europe?


Yes, I think you're wrong. Only a hand full of soldiers who were caught by their own stupidity of posting photos of them abusing prisoners were discharged, I don't think any high ranking officers who created and fostered the abusive practices.
https://www.salon.com/2006/03/14/prosecutions_convictions/

It wasn't a few bad apples, it was the "standard desirable practice"....a practice Bush strongly defended and Trump has said he wants to return to, and at least the 1/4 of America that brainlessly loves him agrees.
Personally, I think we should have left any American that participated in this in Iraq, especially the officers in charge...soldiers have a duty to refuse illegal or immoral orders, and ordering torture is absolutely illegal and immoral.

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

Yet again you are wrong. Trump is hounded day in day out. The only praise Trump is getting is his own Twitter.



Think this is meant for Obama.. you all fell for him, under his spell. Like deer in the headlights you foolishly praised him.


That being said I always liked this song.

Bullshit. I personally didnt find any of those women attractive, let alone "super attractive". Just admit you're bringing your own biases and messed up connotations to a simple video of Keanu training for an upcoming film with the members of Taran tactical. Get off your high horse and just accept you were wrong.

This PC witch hunt nonsense is getting over the top.

If it is an absolutely true fact, one would think you could provide supporting evidence, but you never do when asked. Unsupported claims are unverified argument, not accepted fact. I've never claimed you're wrong, but you've failed to prove you're correct repeatedly.

The judge used the sentencing guidelines for murder 2, which was part of the plea agreement, so the results were exactly the same. He may be in federal prison, which IS a much nicer place than the state pen. Is that how it falls short, or is your issue the specific charge no matter the sentence? Would it be better if he was convicted of murder 2 but was only sentenced to 5 years?

Avoid getting caught on camera, totally agree, but don't plead guilty?...he was facing life in State prison with a pretty hostile jury pool on top of up to decades in club fed for civil rights violations.. I think he made a good choice.

Thanks for the answer though...which I gather was "no, this does not satisfy".

That's why I didn't say "cheated him out of a win".
While I think he could have won the primary given a fair shot, there's no way to be sure...what we are sure of is the DNC broke it's own rules to ensure he didn't get that fair shot.
He was absolutely cheated out of his fair shot.

And actually, I think you're wrong about the numbers too. Even with all the underhandedness (after the fact rule changes, targeted voter purging, etc) Sanders still came really close, and there's little question that he would have done better against Trump. He wouldn't have energized Trump's base 1/4 as much as her nomination did.
Clinton may have had more ardent supporters where it mattered for the primary, in the DNC and primary voting booths, but she also had FAR more ardent detractors in the general public that translated into votes for Trump, and a criminal investigation it was certain would reemerge at the last minute....things they completely ignored, which is why she (and we all) lost.