Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

First - There's only two people in your fucking? For shame Blind, for shame.

Second - I'm right there with you. I just remembered that particular article from conservapedia as a part on atheism and it's ill effects on society. As an atheist, most of that series remained with me as it scared the ever living **** out of me that I was sharing a country with these people.

Third - I voted! (Once) Lets see how it goes!
 
Well this is depressing, yet entirely expected: (they don't say we're "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between" for nothing...) http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/11/republican_tom_corbett_will_be.html

This is the same guy (our now former attorney general who was charged with educating people on Internet safety no less....) who seemingly doesn't understand how the Internet works: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/05/tom_corbett_subpoenaes_twitter.html :|

It's gonna be an interesting few years....
 
Last edited:
Cnn showed some interesing graphs some time ago. The one that struck me most is the result that came up when the polled people about if they voted for someone or something or against someone or somthing*. The results showed that in almost every election going on, in mayority the people voted against something or someone rather than in support of what they voted for. It?s what?s called "protest voting" here, and it?s dangerous. If you can?t find a candidate you support - you at least vote against the candidate you don?t support - even if the candidate you then vote for doesn?t really represent you. It?s also been done in the states where democrats were elected, so don?t misunderstand this as a Anti-Obama thing. It?s a negative bias. And nobody can be satisfied with that. People need to be given to choice to vote for something, for someone who they want to represent themselves ...

*something meaning political issue/agenda etc.
 
Last edited:
As a Uncle of a 4 year old ... I couldn?t wait for them to get a "unhappy" meal and see their faces and the screaming and yelling that would follow :D


? The meal can't exceed 600 calories
? Less than 35 percent of the calories can come from fat (nuts, nut butters, low-fat cheese excepted)
? It's required to have a half cup of vegetables
? Breakfast meals are required to have a half cup of fruit
? Sodium limits
? A multigrain requirement
This actually sounds quite reasonable (no limits on sugar) ... a shame some people think they need to make something like that law at all. People should just not treat their children to the shit they serve up at fast food restaurants. Full stop. No law should even be nessecary to stop people from stuffing that shit into their children just so they can have some quiet minutes afterwards while the kids play with their new toy.
 
Last edited:
Fast Food Phobia
Join me for a cheeseburger and a Coke as we put our feet up, get grease all over ourselves, and examine the deeply-rooted pop culture belief that fast food is bad for you. And here's a thing of honey-mustard sauce to drink for dessert.

The questionable nutritional value of fast food, and of McDonald's in particular, came under its closest scrutiny when documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock released Super Size Me in 2004. The movie documented his own experience living exclusively on McDonald's food for 30 days. He averaged 5,000 calories a day, and when you consider that a Big Mac contains only 510 calories, you know that he was really packing it in. He super-sized every meal that was offered. Most dramatic was Spurlock's reported health problems. Not only did he gain 13% of his body weight, he also developed liver problems, depression and other psychological effects, and sexual dysfunction. Super Size Me also contained a large amount of editorial content about how McDonald's deliberately forces cheap, unhealthy food onto an unsuspecting public for profit.

Super Size Me was the most popular documentary of the year, and was nominated for an academy award. Its claims were generally accepted without critique by nearly everyone who watched it or even just heard about it. But this result was virtually guaranteed by Spurlock's choice of subject matter. McDonald's is probably the world's easiest target. It's always popular to be anticorporate; it's always popular to bash fast foods, and audiences are generally well predisposed to welcome any information that supports these concepts.

Spurlock's results were only presented in his movie. No actual data was published or subjected to any scrutiny or peer review. We have only his verbal statements to go on, plus the lines delivered onscreen by the doctor and nutritionist who performed in his movie. This is a Hollywood entertainment, it's not valid scientific data. However, for the sake of argument, my inclination is to give Spurlock the benefit of the doubt and accept his claims as valid, and accept the movie dialog as actual opinions of unbiased health professionals. From the perspective of responsible empiricism, that's a stretch, but I'm willing to do it. The problem is that Spurlock's results are highly deviant from other research on the same subject.

You see, Morgan Spurlock is not the only person to have ever tested fast-food-only diets, or even McDonald's-only diets. After his movie came out, many people repeated his experiment themselves, including a number of scientific institutions that applied controls and conducted the research in a scientific manner. At least three other documentary movies were made, Bowling for Morgan, Portion Size Me, and Me and Mickey D, in which the filmmakers lived exclusively on McDonald's food for 30 days but (unlike Spurlock) did not force themselves to overeat when they were not hungry. All filmmakers lost weight during the period and suffered no ill effects; and the subjects in Portion Size Me, which was scientifically controlled, also had improved cholesterol.

Most famously, Swedish scientist Fredrik Nystr?m conducted an experiment with seven students; only he upped the ante ? considerably. Rather than Spurlock's 5,000 calories per day, Nystr?m's subjects were required to consume a measured 6,000 calories per day. The food was controlled to ensure that most of the calories were from saturated fats. The subjects were not allowed to exercise during the 30 days, also unlike Spurlock, who made sure that he walked a normal distance every day. Considering these differences, Nystr?m's subjects should have been considerably worse off than Spurlock was, but they weren't. They did all gain 5-15% extra body weight, and complained of feeling tired; but none suffered any other negative effects. There were no mysterious psychological problems, no strange conditions that baffled the doctors. Nystr?m and his medical staff noted no dangerous changes at all. After his experiment, Nystr?m was asked his opinion of Spurlock's extreme reaction, especially his liver problems. Having never examined Spurlock, Nystr?m could only guess, but among two of his perfectly reasonable hypotheses were that Spurlock may have had pre-existing undiagnosed liver problems; or that his normally vegetarian diet may have rendered his liver poorly prepared to suddenly deal with a diet high in carbohydrates and saturated fat, a problem that anyone eating a normal diet would not experience. Any cynic can also easily propose a third possibility, that Spurlock was simply trying to make as dramatic, engaging, and commercial a movie as he could, which is the goal of every filmmaker.

Public relations required McDonald's to respond to Super Size Me, and their response was fairly low key. They basically just agreed that it's best to eat a balanced diet, and stated that any actual ill effects experienced by Spurlock were more the result of force-feeding himself 5,000 calories a day for a month, than they were indicative of anything bad about McDonald's food. Way too much of any food is going to be bad for you.

That response suggests the next thing to look at. Is McDonald's food, and other fast food in general, actually bad for you? Dr. Dean Edell once took a call on his radio show from a woman whose teenage daughter ate a fast food hamburger every day. The woman was worried that her daughter would develop malnutrition. Quite the contrary, said Dr. Edell: She might gain weight if she ate a lot of them, but malnutrition is that last thing she should worry about. A hamburger is actually quite a balanced meal, rich with just about every nutrient. Add a slice of cheese and it even contains all four food groups. Fast food hamburgers are excellent sources of protein, calcium, and iron.

McDonald's hamburgers are not even as grossly calorific as most people probably think. Their biggest burger, the Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, contains 740 calories. Three of those a day, which is more than anyone reasonably eats, still amounts to a good, healthy, slim 2,200 calorie diet for an adult. The real offenders on fast food menus are not the hamburgers at all, but the drinks; especially the milkshakes. Where Spurlock gained his weight was from the milkshakes. McDonald's 32-ounce Chocolate Triple Thick Shake packs 1,160 calories. Personally, I can't even imagine drinking a 32-ounce shake! A more common size, the 16-ounce, is 580 calories, or slightly more than a Big Mac. McDonald's biggest breakfast will also get you: The large Deluxe Breakfast delivers 1,140 calories. This may sound like a lot, but in fact it's not really much more than any average balanced breakfast.

By now you're saying "OK fine, McDonald's food may not be as high in calories as people think, but the real reason it's bad is that it's chock-full of trans-fats, sodium, saturated fats, and cholesterol." That would be bad indeed. The United States and Canada both use a system called the Dietary Reference Intake to establish ideal levels of nutrients. These four compounds listed have an ideal level of "as low as possible", except sodium. Ideally you should take 1500mg of sodium each day, and you should not take in more than 2300mg. McDonald's poster child of evil, the Big Mac, delivers 1040mg of sodium, about 2/3 of your daily ideal. Not a problem by itself, but don't eat three of them.

The Big Mac delivers 10g of saturated fat, which is 10g more than you want; but realistically it's virtually impossible to get zero. The Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization recommend that you keep your saturated fat intake under 7% of your daily caloric intake, and the Big Mac fulfills half of that. So, in short, two Big Macs a day maxes out your recommended safe levels of saturated fat.

The Big Mac's 75mg of cholesterol represents 1/4 of the CDC and World Health Organization's daily recommended maximum. I'm not going to eat four of them a day, so that's not a problem.

Finally, the scariest mugshot on the CDC's Ten Most Wanted poster: trans-fats. Beginning in 2003 with some high-profile class action lawsuits filed against major food producers, the fast food restaurant chains have all pledged to switch to cooking oils free of trans-fats. Some have completed this, others, including McDonald's, are still completing the switch. But although it's possible to eliminate the addition of trans-fats to fried foods, some foods, like meat and some vegetables, contain naturally occurring trans-fat. 2-5% of the fat in livestock is trans-fat. Whether you order a Big Mac or barbecue your own organic filet mignon, you're getting trans-fat. McDonald's doesn't add it, and your neighborhood butcher has no way of reducing it. A big Mac (or any comparable meat of the same quantity) contains 1.5g of trans-fat, which is more than you want, but only about 8% of the daily amount the World Health Organization says you really, really need to keep it under. Eight percent ? the Big Mac is hardly the monster it's made out to be.

So eat up, and I'll see you at the drive-thru.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4088
http://skeptoid.com/audio/skeptoid-4088.mp3
 
a Coke, Fries and a Burger are no meal for a child ... while the food they serve up at McDonalds and other places is not UNhealthy by default (I do enjoy Burger King from time to time), it?s also not healthy food for itself. It can be part of the diet of an adult ... but only a part. For Children, this (Coke, Fries, Burger) is not propper food.
 
"A hamburger is actually quite a balanced meal, rich with just about every nutrient. Add a slice of cheese and it even contains all four food groups. Fast food hamburgers are excellent sources of protein, calcium, and iron."
 
"A hamburger is actually quite a balanced meal, rich with just about every nutrient. Add a slice of cheese and it even contains all four food groups. Fast food hamburgers are excellent sources of protein, calcium, and iron."
I can read, and I have read. But I wasn?t talking about Burgers, but meals. And so is the thing that?s been decided on in SF ... they haven?t banned "burgers" for kids ... they?ve set minimum requirements for children meals (with toys).
 
[/URL]any italian residents here

Maybe... I was just trying to hide in shame and hoping no one would notice...

How is it even possible that you didn't throw that corrupt jerk out of the country years ago?

I sincerely don't know. It's ten years since I discovered he isn't suited to be a Prime Minister, pretty much all my entire political life, and it's two years since I know for sure he is completely out of his mind, in a clinical sense of the word, so I really don't know why I got to these now rather obvious conclusions and so many other people haven't. I mean, I'm not a genius or something, I really have no answer if not a serious case of mass brainwashing.

But what you linked is just the tip of the iceberg of the ridiculous amount of crap he is involved in. To sum up briefly, the last scandal is this: on the night between the 27th and the 28yh of May, Mr. B. used his authority and power and forced the police to release a girl (17 yo) arrested for theft, against the will of the judge who wanted to follow the law and send her to a helping community. Berlusconi personally did the call, and gave more strength to his will by saying that the girl was a niece of the Egyptian President Mubarak (which clearly is an atomic lie - the girl is actually Moroccan and identified). The girl got released under the protection of a regional deputy from Mr. B's party (PDL), a former dental hygienist of Mr. Berlusconi. The woman officially took charge of the girl, but then disregarded her and her actions, so much that the girl was later arrested again for participating in a fight against her new flatmate, a 32yo brasilian prostitute.

So much for what happened AFTER the end of May, but what has happened BEFORE? Why is she so important to Mr. B.? He says he can't help himself from helping other people, like a humanitarian organization, but that's clearly another shameful lie. So what?

The girl was asked by the police to tell her story, which she did. We then discovered that SHE called Mr. B. to get help, so she had one of the personal numbers of Mr.B., more precisely of one of the man of his escort. She has the number because she had been a guest of Mr. B. during one of the many dinners he likes to throw.

You have to know, because all this is already well known and supported by facts, that the guests for these dinners are some very close friends of Mr. B., Mr. B. itself, and a variable number (20 to 30) of beautiful girls, each one rewarded with a sum of money for their participation. Some of them are paid more to stay after dinner and have sex with Mr. B. and, presumably, his guests. In some cases, the reward for having sex with Mr.B. was the promise of becoming a candidate for next municipal or regional elections.

So, the 17yo girl was one of these 20-30 girls on two different occasion, and was awarded a sum of 7.000 euro, which is pretty much what other woman was paid to have sex with Mr.B. However, both her and Mr. B. have denied any intercourse between the two of them, and Mr. B. said he didn't even know she was under 18yo until after the two dinners. We will probably never know, but the situation is already terrible as it is.

She was there at the dinner and later, bringing drinks to Mr. B. while he was telling everybody old jokes full of sexual innuendos.
Mr. B. defended himself by trying to empathize with the lowest instincts of men, saying he simply loves women and that, in any case, he is still better than many other, because at least he likes women, not men.

---

What else can I say? All this situation is even too clear for anyone with a still functioning brain.

No, one thing I can say: learn from us and never let your mind be fucked up like this.

Media are powerful tools, brutal ignorance is a powerful tool, money is an extremely powerful tool, lies are too, ans so is personal charisma and a corrupted ruling class. Combine two or more of these things together, add an absolute lack of any kind of ethic, set the only ruling valour to money, and all this can happen. And it can happen everywhere, even in very rich western societies.

Also, noticed that what has saved Italy up to now is not his parliament, nor its people, nor common sense, nor intelligence. No, the people behaved like idiots. what saved Italy is its constitution, its strenght, the strong divison between powers, the freedom of its judges, the strong role of democratic guarantee represented by the President of the Republic. Berlsuconi has not yet succeeded in becoming a dictator because formally his political power comes still not from the people but from the President of the Republic and the Parliament.

Mr. B. has already stuffed the minds of his supporters with the idea that he is in charge because he has been chosen directly by the people, that whoever contradicts him is against the will of -all- the people, that the (legally elected) opposition in parliament is trying to subvert the result of the elections every time they disagree, that the parliamen itself is useless and should be reduced or eliminated to let the legislative power in the hands of the Prime Minister, that he is the underrdog against the strong powers govering our lives, that he is different from all the other politicians and that he can solve everything by himself, provided the people trust him, let him work and tell him to do so.

And we are still lucky that Mr. B. is not violent. He just wants power and not being subject to any law.

---

What if you give the power to the people, and the people renounce to it by giving it to a dictator? A democracy can end by will of the people. How can you stop people from being utterly, hopelessly, senselessly, petrifyingly, suicidally stupid, without taking away their freedom?

Yes, US, you are the first country after Italy that I have thought of.
 
Last edited:
http://forums.finalgear.com/political-discussion/random-thoughts-political-edition-34417/page-195/political-discussion/random-thoughts-political-edition-34417/page-195/
Yeah I am a baby and I voted...
Not only did I vote...
[B]But I voted twice[/B] :D[/QUOTE]

You moved to Illinois? I made sure to do it "the Illinois way" and vote three times, even dressing up as a 1860's robber baron, complete with cloak and strokable mustache.

[QUOTE="British_Rover, post: 0"]
Just to remind you Nicki Haley is the attractive Indian American R Gov candidate that was endorsed by Palin.
[/QUOTE]

Big kudos to South Carolina (and Louisiana a few years ago) for breaking stereotypes; she even had opposition from her own party, one of them calling her a "raghead." She stuck to her principles of smaller government, deflected petty accusations of morality, and won in a southern state. Democrat or Republican, be very proud of your country today. Little by little we are moving forward and dropping silly archaic views of "race" and "gender."
 
Sorry about this, but I need to rant about something that's been buggin me today.

So I knew my mentor was a liberal and a democrat, and my labmate BigBoobs is also a democrat. I'm also a registered democrat, but my ideas are slightly more moderate than liberal. For instance, I found Berkeley not to be "home (politically)" but to be "very liberal".

BigBoobs and my mentor did their research and voted appropriately.

As did I. I voted after looking at the candidates and all their arguments and positions in detail, reading everything about the propositions online and in the pamphlet. I looked at both sides of the coin and made my judgment that way.

My other labmate, CurlyHairMediumBoobsFatAss, I found out voted for Meg Whitman. I was like why? And her response: "Because I'm conservative".

What the fuck?

Why the fuck would you vote for someone so blindly just because you're branding yourself a conservative?

And for those that don't know: Meg Whitman is a complete liar, and even my conservative friends think she's retarded and not worthy to take the governor's seat.

CurlyHairMediumBoobsFatAss is coming off more and more as an idiot. I think I should stop listening to her for advice or anything in general. I know I shouldn't because I'm sure she's very good at physics and astronomy, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I've had issues with her personality from the get-go, and always thought there was something wrong with her. Now I sort of know.
 
Just admit you want to tap that fatass and the politics she likes, and her lake of thought about her vote really turns you off. We have all been there. :tease:
 
Who in the hell voted for that shitbag Gavin Newsom?
 
Sorry about this, but I need to rant about something that's been buggin me today.

So I knew my mentor was a liberal and a democrat, and my labmate BigBoobs is also a democrat. I'm also a registered democrat, but my ideas are slightly more moderate than liberal. For instance, I found Berkeley not to be "home (politically)" but to be "very liberal".

BigBoobs and my mentor did their research and voted appropriately.

As did I. I voted after looking at the candidates and all their arguments and positions in detail, reading everything about the propositions online and in the pamphlet. I looked at both sides of the coin and made my judgment that way.

My other labmate, CurlyHairMediumBoobsFatAss, I found out voted for Meg Whitman. I was like why? And her response: "Because I'm conservative".

What the fuck?

Why the fuck would you vote for someone so blindly just because you're branding yourself a conservative?

And for those that don't know: Meg Whitman is a complete liar, and even my conservative friends think she's retarded and not worthy to take the governor's seat.

CurlyHairMediumBoobsFatAss is coming off more and more as an idiot. I think I should stop listening to her for advice or anything in general. I know I shouldn't because I'm sure she's very good at physics and astronomy, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I've had issues with her personality from the get-go, and always thought there was something wrong with her. Now I sort of know.

As you move through your working life you will find people that you have to work with or for that you dislike on either a personal basis, professional basis or sometimes unforutnately both. It is important to be able to seperate disliking someone on a personal basis from a professional one and vice versa.

When you end up in the situation when you dislike them in both ways well you just have to hold your nose and do the best you can. If they work with you or work for you then it can sometimes be easier. If you work for them well that can be total hell.

Until recently I was never in the position of working with someone that I truly disliked on a personal and professional basis but I am now. It fucking sucks. I don't want to get into anymore details then that.

The best thing you can do in that situation is just try to be the better person and look for the light at the end of the tunnel.
 
I feel your pain. Whenever I think what a bunch of tossers are in our goverments and what shit they do and why we can?t have any decent politicans ... I look to Italy. And then I feel like giving them all a hug and telling them how glad I am to have them ...

You guys really have it bad ... non-stable idiot-led goverments or self rightious asshole-led goverment ...
 
Close run thing between UK and Italy IMHO.

Yours are not so bad - you did re-unification pretty smoothly - and I know that was going to be very difficult.
 
Top