What you've quoted is that's the same thing I said in my OP -JH acknowledges that changing diets helps. They specifically say meat and milk are the prime allergy suspects.

There isn't any disagreement here :-)




But..........I do have a bone to pick with Hopkins. The fish oil study they reference on the Hopkins site, is a bit sus when you dig deeper.
Everyone in the study was also given disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs along with the fish oil..... so Hopkins isn't really giving us the full story here, which is: Fish oil helps remission in people on RA drugs.

Great, now RA sufferers have to buy toxic liver destroying drugs, and also buckets of fish oil supplements too(the doses were 10x the daily recommended amount of fish oil).... I guess they're line of reasoning is that you make more money if you can sell them two pills for the same disease.

They even try to hide the drugs part by calling it "DMARDs" after the references (which people don't usually read). Technically it's not lying I suppose, but it's very unethical. If I didn't go all the way through and find the research it'd have never figured that out. Turns out John Hopkins is largely industry funded, which doesn't surprise me now that they're approach is to push more pills, instead of less.

Sincerely, I have to thank you for bringing that to my attention. I like to keep a list of this misleading stuff.

You weren't wrong when you said there are some scummy misleading people in the medical field.

It's a shame this series only lasted two seasons, damn, now I want to dig up my DVDs and watch it again.

Since those food processor blades have been recalled for being brittle and chipping into foods, I wouldn't suggest freezing them before use unless you have a steel deficiency in your diet.

Great video, but I really can't dig the bloody burgers.

No "apology" necessary -- I can definitely see how it would look like bad AI in a one-off context like this, I just wasn't sure if you were making a sarcastic dig at them or not (and it would be fine if you were, also).

There's actually an amazing level of depth in subtle details that get put into the GTA games. Some of them are immersion-enhancing things that you tend to only notice on a subconscious level, like "tick tick tick" sounds of car engines cooling after you shut them down. And some are little in-joke tropes like this.

Honestly, it seems like it would take a LOT of work to coordinate all of those details and references and keep them fairly internally consistent. On top of that effort, the payoff is arguably somewhat dubious in cost-benefit terms -- a few people with notice these things and find them a little bit funny, a few will notice them and be offended to varying degrees, and a bunch either won't notice at all or will chalk them up to AI / simulation glitches.

But I still think it is cool that Rockstar doesn't shy away from including this kind of stuff, and/or stuff that more blatantly pushes the limits.

Stripping context is a stupid semantics game and your better than that. If I say "declaring it's ok to kill children" is an abhorrent thing to say and I condemn it unequivocally, you aren't being honest if you observe I uttered the words "...it's ok to kill children...".

I stated the context being an act of war. If you are at war, and the enemy has managed to dig up a battle group with dual American citizenship, does every bomber sortie over them have to hold back until police can come in and arrest the group so they can stand trial first?

Your just being deliberately obtuse. Simply state you disagree on it qualifying as war like situation, then you and I otherwise agree on the whole thing.

I think the issue here is that John Oliver overestimated the intelligence and compassion of Americans.

If he'd spent more time hanging around @bobknight33 perhaps he'd have seem Trump coming.

Still waiting on a response, btw, Bob, I'll rephrase so you don't have to dig through my other comments. You once said Obama would destroy the United States; What specific examples can you point to which support that claim? By what metric was the US worse off at the end of his presidency?

Likewise, you claim Trump will be great for the country. What metrics can you point to which you believe will improve under his reign? Let's get some numbers down now so we can track his progress.

Lastly, when (and I do mean when) Trump fails utterly, will you admit you were wrong about him? What exactly would have to happen for you to admit you were wrong about Obama or Trump?

AHA! I can see clearly ... your viewpoint. I've only recently been watching her on a regular[ish] basis and was interested in this particular subject and its breakdown. Didn't really think about the FOX/school bully aspect [I get a mean streak every once in a blue moon which may explain why I dig her style] ... AND ... you are correct sir! Just for YOU, sift pal of mine, I will happily designate the video *terrible [which is one of my favorite channel designations bar none] Peace Out and thanks for the discourse

Fantastic sift, @bobknight33. Even IF Putin himself ordered KGB types to hack into Hillary and the DNC's email, Russia didn't "destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton". Clinton and the DNC did that to themselves.

Trump had similar problems resulting from motivated parties going through his past to see what muck they dig up. There was a lot there -- "grab them by the pussy", etc.

Hillary lost. Against that. FFS, if that doesn't send a clear message to the Democrat party that they need to seriously rethink how they operate, I don't know what will. Your progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are really well liked by core Democrats and quite appealing to moderates, on-the-fence types, and independents. Listen to them, not the rich fat cats and corporate lobbyists that represent everything that you criticize about the GOP.

I swear, both parties are just too goddamn stupid to survive. Evolve or die.

The one time he allows for a persons life experience, he gets it wrong.

"My mom is Catholic and she believes in hell" is absolutely NOT a valid response to "Catholics don't believe in hell". For someone who believes in data, that's a terrible response. It's a sample size of one out of over 1 billion. And if you were to dig up the canonical Catholic teaching on hell, that STILL wouldn't be the right data (the argument was "Catholics don't believe in hell", not "Catholicism does not teach the concept of hell". Even if you were to say "actually every Catholic I know believes in hell" that's still not a valid argument, unless you know thousands of Catholics.

I've lost a lot of respect for Sam Harris over the years and this just reinforces that.

Of course, data is important, especially when it comes to things like whether vaccines cause autism (they don't).

But if you're talking about things like how police treat black people or whether women are paid less in the workplace... the life experience of those people are a vital part of the data, especially when the data isn't clear cut.

Well, if anything it introduces GITS to the newbs... I know so many kids in their early 20's that have never even heard of it; maybe it will inspire them to go dig some good shit up.

We always crave new, but the past is riddled with cavernous halls intertwined with crystals & gems.

Figured you would dig this insanity http://videosift.com/video/Speedflying-Through-The-Alps-Looks-Batshit-Crazy

Awesome. To me, only slightly reading between the lines, it sounds like he is suggesting exactly what I feel is the right track here.

Let Trump do whatever it is that he is going to do. If individual elements / components of his policy suggestions are good, help him with them. And if/when he suggests dangerous, counterproductive or bigoted things, call him out, dig in your heels, and do everything you can to raise awareness and stop him.

Let Trump dig his own grave trying to fulfill all of his contradictory promises to a large angry mob.

But in the meantime, don't obstruct good things simply because they came from the "wrong side". That has been the Republican modus operandi -- show the people there is a better way. Trump talked about rebuilding infrastructure in his victory speech. FDR's "New Deal" did a lot of that with the Tennessee Valley Authority and other projects. That created a LOT of jobs and helped pull the US out of the great depression. Any infrastructure / public works stuff that Trump pushes for that would actually have positive results while creating jobs? Sign off on that shit!

Trump's Wall could be a fulcrum point. Pointless and somewhat offensive in premise, but some good could come from trying to build it or even actually succeeding (which I find highly unlikely). I think the appropriate response to Trump's Wall for Democrat legislators would be to vocally point out that tax money would probably be better spent elsewhere, but otherwise playing along to a certain extent. That wall is going to be a big millstone around Trump's neck -- no need to work overly hard to help him try to wriggle out of it.

I'm as surprised as most everyone at how the election turned out. In the week or so leading up to election night, I considered the possibility that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, but not the other way around.

Still, as someone who thinks the electoral college is bullshit, consider this thing from all angles:

Hypothetical Possibility 1: At first, when I thought that Trump might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, I thought that would be a good thing going forward. Both sides would have been screwed out of a victory by the idiotic system in recent memory, which might push for bipartisan support to scrap it.

But thinking further ... I don't think that would have actually panned out. The GOP establishment wouldn't have seen that as "their" candidate getting screwed, they would have been happy. They might have had to pay lip service to the idea of reconsidering the electoral college to pander to angry Republican voters who felt cheated out of a Trump presidency, but they could easily have just left it at that and sat on the issue until apathy took over again.


Possibility 2: The likely reality. Trump will win by electoral votes but lose the popular vote, and that will stand. The Senate and House are both Republican controlled, and the Supreme Court will very likely swing further in that direction. Possibly a LOT.

That sounds terrible. And it definitely means that in the short term, there will be absolutely zero traction for anyone wanting to push the idea of getting rid of the electoral college. BUT -- it also sets up a gold-plated opportunity to see real, actual movement on that front in 2 years. Think Trump is going to be horrendous? Think GOP-controlled Legislature will be abysmal? Look on the bright side -- if those expectations are correct, the blowback in midterm elections won't be a "wave". It'll be a fuckin' tsunami. And that's what we need to have a shot at killing the electoral college.


Possibility 3: Faithless Elector rampage. You can argue, with some merit, that the electoral college was intended to prevent or safeguard against exactly the kind of situation that we are in now. And I'd love to see President Bernie myself. But what would actually result if enough electors swapped to make that happen?

First, NYTimes projects Trump getting 306 electoral votes. That would mean that 37 faithless electors would have to happen to flip the election. You have to go back more than 100 years to find an election where there has been more than 1 faithless elector. There has only been 1 election with more than 37 faithless electors, and that was in 1872 because the candidate died. So realistically, it would be close to impossible to pull this off. (all info from wikipedia)

But forget the odds and just assume that it did happen. I think that would be a strategically terrible idea for Democrats, liberals, etc. Trump won because enough people didn't like the prospect of President Hillary and/or actually wanted to see what Trump himself could do. In either case, his voters generally aren't going to give him a whole lot of leash to screw things up or fail to deliver on their expectations. It will be next to impossible for him to keep those swing people happy. If Trump is 1/10th as terrible as the average Democrat expects him to be, he will alienate all of those people in very short order.

But if faithless electors "stole" the presidency from him (and you know that's how it would be perceived)? Oh, man ... he'd effectively be a political martyr. The anger and backlash would likely be apocalyptic and/or lead to revolt. Worse than almost any realistic way that Trump himself might fuck things up as the President. Even if that was somehow avoided, which I tend to think would be impossible, whoever got installed as President would have the shortest leash of all time, and a massively hostile and motivated Legislature that they would be forced to attempt to work with. Better have some sacrificial lamb to put in there that has zero political future, and even then they would probably cause massive damage to their party by association when they inevitably fall.

No, I think the clear best option is to let Trump (and the GOP) dig his own grave over the next year or two, and then graciously ride the wave of comeuppance.

I think it is missing a "Democrat" before Congress as well.

Because, apart from the obviously targeted at Republican digs, it is behaviour they are all guilty of.

*isdupe

but thanks for digging it up again. awesome!