Interesting….he now says he’s discovered that the girl who told him “no film, no disclosure” is a popular Chinese blogger who has court cases pending for filming people against their will IN CHINA where it seems you do have the right to refuse to be filmed in public.
Makes me wonder if this was a stunt to show how backwards that is by creating an international incident pretending you think it’s normal and global and get her cases dropped.
He claims the CCP has labeled him a violent thug that attacked the young woman with the flag intent on hurting or killing her and produced edited videos to make him look nuts. Good thing he has the entire unedited video plastered across YouTube and other platforms….and years of videos of himself doing the exact same thing they got mad about but not causing any trouble.

Jesus fuck, @bobknight33….you can’t be this gullible. Some internet failure of a traveler blogger did not discover some massive nefarious Chinese plot to develop targeted diseases to release publicly against their genetic enemies….nor did he fact check it any more than you did. If there was a scintilla of truth to this nonsense, he would have been disappeared long before he could post this fantasy through the well monitored Chinese internet or leave the country. Duh. How do you fall for this…every….single….time?

I love how these idiotic conspiracy theories require unbelievable competence, cooperation on a scale never seen, planning and execution on a god level, but idiot internet sleuths think they, on their own, have unraveled the conspiracy because the god level conspirators made some idiotic rookie mistake no professional ever would, exposing the entire scheme….but only to them, the proof is hidden, just trust them.

Jesus fucking Christ, grow up and join reality, buddy. You honestly need mental help if you believe the nonsense you post.

What is this new lie you're repeating over and over??
What evidence is there on Clinton that was missed in the never ending litany of investigations of her?
What evidence do you have Obama "pulled strings" for either? None that you could produce when I asked before....I seriously doubt you ever will address the question, because you prefer to spout nasty lies and hide when challenged.

I'll go out on a limb and say Obama didn't intervene. Prove me wrong with evidence and fact.....try with innuendo and more baseless Trumpism, be prepared for a serious lambasting.

On the other hand, Trump's "friend like Obama" did unethically if not illegally intervene repeatedly and continuously in every way possible including some extremely unethical ways ....that friend being Trump himself.

Since this is word for word what you wrote to me in private including the silly capitalization, I'm guessing it's cut and paste from a right wing blogger and has zero basis in fact. You are serious about these accusations in private, not sure why you hit sarcasm here except out of embarrassment.

As you know, we MADE money (>$12 million?) proving his cabinet was a criminal organization filled with dozens of felons....a GREAT deal by any measure. Gotta spend money to make money, and we MADE major money on the Trump investigation.

We spent well over $30 million to actually prove Clinton's innocence in just one of many instances Republicans created ridiculous politically motivated investigations, and you support spending tens-hundreds of millions more to get her for....well, you don't even know what. Republicans spent $1.5 trillion per year permanently giving Trump a tax break, you have no fiscal conservatives left in your party and only whine about spending when it's politically expedient.

Only a total proud moron could get "proven innocent" from "this report does not exonerate Mr Trump"....are you a proud moron?

We've always got room to improve though because as a fellow Canadian I don't feel my country men are all similarly free.

Mike Ward, a comedian up here was sued for $35k because of a joke he made on set.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mike-ward-verdict-1.3688089

Greg Elliott disagreed with a feminist blogger over twitter and was hit a three year criminal trial over criminal harassment, including a bail condition throughout the trial banning him from internet access. His job relied on that internet access so even though he was cleared of all charges...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

You aren't supposed to dress up as Mulan unless you are Asian, or even worse as Pocahantas unless your first nations.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/universities-crack-down-on-offensive-halloween-costumes-at-campus-parties/wcm/b1b50639-0157-4a7d-b7fc-fd45718c4d6d

If you run want to run a Women's only naked spa, you still must allow those with male genitals entry or face a human rights commission complaint which is still in progress:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/body-blitz-transgender-policy-1.4158397

Those a re recent examples easy to mind, but this is pretty frequent.

I think your overestimating how much money is in charity appearances for an vegan audience(which is something like 1% of the population). Wouldn't be easier to make money from a product that targets the other 99% of the population?

If he wanted to make money, he can make a lot more by simply being a doctor. And a helluva lot more by prescribing statins and all of the other drugs used to counteract the side-effects of statins.

Or if he wanted the blogs and lifestyle thing, he could sell Paleo/Ketosis diets because it's a lot easier to sell books that tell people to eat bacon instead of vegetables.

You'll notice that his blog doesn't make money like other blogs do, as there are no ads, and he's got no industry sponsorship's.

If he's trying to make money, then he's doing a poor job.





As for cherry picking data, yes his opinions are formed by the studies that aren't clearly B.S. industry funded designer studies - The studies that are repeated over and over with small adjustments to make the outcome positive. But I know he reads even the industry funded studies, because he often points out why they are poorly constructed studies, designed purposely to show a specific outcome.


He makes a new video nearly every day, and has been doing so for nearly 10 years. That's some 3000+ videos. He's allowed one mistake.
But it's not even a mistake. This blogger is trying to discredit all of this work because of semantics about a W.H.O. report. (She didn't read the W.H.O report correctly, because it does actually say that poultry *may* be carcinogenic too).

Referencing one opinion blog to accuse someone's lack of scientific evidence.

Oh the irony...

EDIT: BTW the blogger is just some bozo that is trying to justify her reasons not to be fully vegetarian/vegan, by using character assassination.

She's doing whatever it takes to clear herself from any responsibility or guilt.

There are far more people in the world with epilepsy, yet the warning is about people who "fear eternity". Surely if you put up a warning, it should be for something like epilepsy rather than the 10 sjw bloggers in the world that have apeirophobia. Or claim to.

I have a phobia about being told about phobias, so that's my secret - i'm always triggered.

It's not all dairy farms, but it's most. See http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/430528/err47b_1_.pdf or page 7 of http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/sb/sb978.pdf (note my requirement of .edu not some blowhard blogger).

Namely:
The number of dairy farms with fewer than 500 cows (your "good places") has decreased significantly and the number with more than 500 has increased majorly. And those farms with more than 500 account for 50% of the milk made.

So, yeah. There are some good farms out there. But the number is shrinking and they're unable to compete with the large factory farms.

Also, from one of the docs cited above:
In 2000, about 71.1 percent of production came from
operations of 100 or more cows, up from 55.2 percent
in 1993. Production from the smallest herds, not a
large share to begin with, fell by about half—from 4.1
to 2 percent

---

Rather than refute any of the other claims above, I'll just leave it at this. I have vegan exhaustion. My point is that these aren't just made up vegan facts from PETA, these are studies by the USDA.

@newtboy

#1 and #2, fine, if you won't go there to read it's now pasted in full for you:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear. Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. We extrapolate our measurements and published measurements from wetlands with the help of remote-sensing land-cover classification using nine Landsat scenes. We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

#3, regardless of if it make's sense to you, and regardless of if it means a 10C warming by 2100, the IPCC scientists collaborative summary says it anyways. If you want to claim otherwise it's you opposing the science to make things seem worse than they are, not me.

#4, To tell them those things would sound like this. The IPCC current best estimates from climate models project 2100 to be 1.5C warmer than 2000. This has already resulted in 2000 being 0.8C warmer than 1900. Summer arctic sea ice extent has retreating significantly is the biggest current impact. By 2100 it is deemed extremely unlikely that the Greenland and Antarctic iccesheets will have meaningfully reduced and there is medium confidence that the warming will actually expand Antarctic ice cover owing to increased precipitation from the region. That's the results and expectations to be passed on from the 5th report from an international collaboration of scientists. Whether that fits your world view or not doesn't matter to the scientific evidence those views are founded on and supported by.

You said the ocean's may be unfishable in 20 years, and the best support you came up with was a news article quote claiming that by 2040 most of the Arctic would be too acidic for Shell forming fish. Cherry picked by the news article that also earlier noted that was dependent on CO2 concentrations exceeding 1000ppm in 2100, and even that some forms of plankton under study actually faired better in higher acidity in some case. In a news article that also noted that the uneven distribution of acidity makes predicting the effects very challenging. If news articles count as evidence I then want to claim we'll have working fusion power to convert to in 5 years time from Lockheed Martin. I'll agree with your news post on one count, the world they talk about, where CO2 emissions continue accelerating year on year, even by 2100, is bad. It's also a bit hard to fathom with electric cars just around the corner, and if not solar and wind, fusion sometime before then too, that we'll still be using anywhere near today's emissions let alone still accelerating our use.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
And you link to a blog, and a blog that provides exactly zero references to any scientific sources for the claim. Better yet, even the blog does NOT claim that the access to water will be limited because of climate change, the blog even mentions multiple times how other forms of pollution are destroying huge amounts of fresh water(again with zero attributions).

Here's the IPCC best estimates for 2100 impacts regionally:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

You'll find it's a largely mixed bag if you can be bothered to read what the actual scientists are predicting. Just bare in mind they regularly note that climate models still have a lot of challenges with accurate regional estimates. I guess your blogger isn't hindered by such problems though. If you don't want to bother I'll summarize for you and note they observe a mixed bag of increased precipitation in some regions, notably monsoons generally increasing, and other areas lowering, but it's all no higher than at medium confidences. But hey, why should uncertainty about 2100 prevent us from panicking today about more than half the world losing their drinking water in 10 years. I'll make you a deal, in ten years we can come back to this thread and see whether or not climate change has cause 2/3 of the world to lose their drinking water already or not. I'm pretty confident on this one.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
Lost 50% since 2005? That'd be scary, oh wait, you heard that from the same blog you say? I've got a hunch maybe they aren't being straight with you...
Here are a pair of links I found in google scholar to scientific articles on the Himalaya's glaciers:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~braup/himalaya/Science13Nov2009.pdf
I you can't be bothered to read:
Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Riana, whose report notes that the glacier has "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years" Which looks likely that your blogger found a popular press piece about that single glacier and then went off as though it were fact, and across the entire mountain range .

http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/glaciers%20and%20climate.pdf
Here's another article noting that since 1962 Himalayan glacier reduction is actually about 21%.

If you go back and read the IPCC links I gave earlier you can also find many of the regional rivers and glaciers in India/East China are very dependent on monsoons and will persist as long as monsoons do. Which the IPCC additionally notes are expected to, on the whole, actually increase through 2100 warming.

I've stated before up thread that things are warming and we are the major contribution, but merely differed from your position be also observing the best evidence science has for predictions isn't catastrophic. That is compounded by high uncertainties, notably that TOA energy levels are still not able to be predicted well. The good news there is the latest IPCC estimated temps exceed the observed trends of both temperature and TOA imbalance, so there's reason for optimism. That's obviously not license for recklessly carrying on our merry way, as I've noted a couple times already about roads away from emissions that we are going to adopt one way or another long before 2100.

I picture the same result for food bloggers/critics who try and make a decent meal.

Your video, Reality show puts fashion bloggers to work in a sweatshop, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

As you wrote " As has been mentioned above, you must simply have no idea what socialism is if you think America is even headed in that direction, we're headed the other way buddy" shows your lack of understanding of political systems.

You can 100% government control on 1 side and 0 government power at the other end

At the 100% you would have labels such as Communism
Socialism,Fascism and such. At 0 would be Anarchy


Our government is in the middle but sliding towards more and more government control and morphing into some for of Oligarchy by buying votes via socialist programs promised by the left.
Then the pudendum swing back and the republicans buy votes by promising to "undue" what the left has done.

Either way the people loose because nothing get totally undone. More and more government control ensues.



1 Yes I would like there to be ZERO dollars donations by corporations and people. Since the government owns public airways and grants them via FCC, hence ABC, CBS, NBC etc let these station allot public time for equal debate for ALL parties and persons. TAKE the money out of politics.

2 I do agree what you indicated by the Republicans and did this week was reprehensible. A passing a trillion + bill and and worse the extra "shit" to help banks and such. But to be fair to republicans , Democrats over screw corporations and republicans attempt to unscrew them.

3 school lunches - Government should not be in regulating school lunch- it should be a local thing. Republicans are just undoing Michelle Obama failed school lunch program. Just more finger pointing points for bloggers to use.

4 Federal government controls the laws in DC Its their little kingdom. They can re ban pot all day long.

Generally speaking there are 5 types of government:
Monarchy - rule by one - never truly exits
Oligarchy - ruled by few - most governments today
Democracy- rule by majority - Majority rule is a failed system.
Republic- rule by law - Law limits Government powers
Anarchy - every man for himself- Always short lived due to power vacuum.


You say " America is sliding away from socialism, and into corporatism" Well they are basically neighbors in the political spectrum which would be some form of Oligarchy. Neither necessary serve the people freely.


Both Democrats and Republicans are sliding headlong towards Oligarchy. One party is just trying to get there quicker than the other party.


Both parities have utterly failed its people. There is only 1 party that desires to steer this country back towards a Republic and that is the TEA party. They get stronger and stronger every time their party fail its constituents. Were not all right wing lynching nuts. That's just a myth promoted by left wing media to color you thinking to stay on the Democrat plantation.
Truth of the matter is that four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents. Go to a rally and see for you self.

Yes, but you have repeatedly claimed your distain, disrespect, hatred, fear, and paranoia about the state. I just assumed you would walk the walk too. Could it be you're a closet statist, supporting the evil beast with your taxes and licenses even though you tell others not to?!

Sorry, I don't get my science from zealous political blog sites. I think that's your problem, you ONLY trust the political bloggers that tell you what you like, and no one else.

Harassment is a bad thing, but I feel very sorry for anyone that does not engage in general pleasantness, and finds phrases like "how are you?" and "nice day!" to be a form of harassment. Worst still, to chastise and publicly present them as harassers on youtube .. what sort of lowlife do you have to be to do that? I don't care how many actual harassers you caught, that is not an acceptable method so put the net away and get the fishing rod out.

I say things like hello, nice day.. And if i'm in a queue and i think of something to say that i think someone might find funny or help someone out, i'll say it. I don't expect a reply, but if there's a fun person around then it might pass the time better. I asked someone of the female persuasion at my pool the other week if they were looking for the sauna (slightly hidden away) because i heard her talking to what i assume was her husband about the sauna. I do that for old men, old ladies, fat blokes, skinny women; all sorts.. i offer men and women help out of the jacuzzi if they need it. Her reaction was to say "No..... WHY?" very pointedly.

Well you know what? Fuck her - i did something nice and now she's the one that's being rude to others. I cannot fucking stand the high and mighty attitude of these people, as though they have never been guilty of accidentally doing something other people didn't want them to do. As though they have an inbuilt capability to read the motive of other people. Obviously i offered to explain the location of the sauna because i wanted to have sex with her in it (yeah, sex in a disgusting public sweat box & burnt genitals, my favourite), god forbid someone actually be nice to someone else. I felt like being rude back, but that'd make me worse than her.

There is a very fine line between being an activist against harassment, and being an unhinged arsehole who goes around over reacting and getting the wrong end of the stick and hurting people who were showing genuine honesty. I'm so sorry if you've been harassed in the past, but you don't see victims of domestic abuse blaming everyone that looks/talks at them funny in the street for all the pain they've suffered - which is substantially more painful and personality-warping than the average activist blogger jumping on the "trigger-warning" bangwagon.

Harassment exists and this blanket of "harassment" that these videos engender for all sorts of shit is distracting us from that issue, and to some degree turning people against the issue..... I mean, if i get unfairly treated like a scumbag for years by "mostly" women who assume i'm harassing them, do i get license to make videos about it and complain about women as a whole, judging every action of every woman to be one of harassment because of my own insecurities? That's why these kind of videos are so poorly received @EMPIRE.. the majority of the content is the videographer sneering at people for being pleasant and exchanging niceties, why should people laud that kind of behaviour? I expect that behaviour to be discouraged by women as well and i'd forgive them for taking more notice of the fewer examples of harassment than i did, because opinions are a bit selfish by nature.

And i didn't even question the validity of the supporting cast..... I'm sure Rob Bliss (OF ROB BLISS CREATIVE DOT COM EVERYBODY FAVOURITE AND LIKE PLS) would have no desire to help make this video more interesting! I quote his own philosophy here from his website, he believes in "giving people the content that they want." Interestingly worded remit... Why does no one ever question the source if it's a "reality" video? The guy practically states in his "approach" section that he aims to pander to people, he doesn't want to challenge viewer opinion...

Walloftext, sorry, but i don't like the sentiment of this video, and i will not let people in the comments tell me that i am a bad person for doing so - these are my reasons.

From the YT description:
"This video is a Dramatization of previous events that occurred"

Would you like to know more?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/NYPD-racial-profiling-hoax-video-675432

"In a cynical and duplicitous attempt to capitalize on New York City’s documented racial profiling problems, a pair of bloggers have created a video purporting to show an NYPD officer stopping and frisking a pair of Muslim men for the crime of wearing traditional Islamic garments.

But the viral video is a sham, a staged production aimed to go viral and pile up views and YouTube channel subscriptions for its young creators, Brooklynites Adam Saleh and Sheikh Akbar, who get a piece of the revenue generated by ads that run before their videos play."