Same here. I consume as little processed foods or chemicals as I can. Though I still have a coke or a root beer on holidays.Canadian_Sniper_X wrote:
I drink water... I stopped the pop a good 3 years ago. However I still occasionally have a bit of Dr. Pepper because its so f**king good.
Search
Search results: 2,577 found, showing up to 50
This is negligence. This thing has happened before, and in worse conditions. Why are you even asking?
Drunk people may have slower reflexes, but they feel less pain. That is a definite advantage.
Know why? Because no one is going to pay a team of medical scientists to conduct a study on it. The opposite in fact. The big corp that makes it will pay the FDA NOT to conduct thorough studies. You would believe in its affect if it hurt someone you love. Just like how anti-depressants didn't drive my dad into depression and destroy his hormones. Those are safe too, ya know.SenorToenails wrote:
Aspartame is NOT a poison. The so-called 'evidence' claiming that it is dangerous is purely anecdotal and unproven.Stingray24 wrote:
Here's a thought: Who primarily drink light products? Women. The only ones who can bring children into the world are poisoning themselves with diet sodas in some misguided attempt to lose weight. Regular Pepsi FTW.
Uh, you're wrong on that. The poor are only gaurenteed emergency care at the emergency room. And they foot the bill. Our medical system sucks. Insurance companies are worse than banks on the corruption and greed scale.imortal wrote:
Agreed. I never said our system was perfect. It obviously needs to be overhauled. Ever since the HMOs became big business, it has hurt everyone in one way or another. But I do NOT think that socialized medicine is the way to go. I do not like the idea of waiting 6 months to get a biopsy to discover if my growth is cancerous or not. I refuse to believe it is a choice of one or the other. I want a third choice.Turquoise wrote:
Letting HMO's rape us fails.ATG wrote:
Socialized medicine fails.
Now you know.
Oh, and our system is not entirely evil. If you are completely destitute, you are still guaranteed care. It is the people who make money, but not quite enough to get their own health care that the system hurts the most.
I doubt you have ever heard me praise HMOs or our current system, but socialized care is not the way either.
As to the WHO, and its rankings... who is running WHO anyway? That is like asking a CEO here in America if he believes in capatilism.
I'd say he's biased towards conservatives. But he means well.
Oh please. No internet drama kthx? Close poll, take winner. There will be another chance for the loser next month.
The civil suit wouldn't require them to be convicted of anything. Had they dug up her grave they could be sued for damages.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
all true - but no felonies.jonsimon wrote:
Exactly. While they are not punishable for necrophilia, certainly there are felonies or misdemeanors for trespassing, theft, or destruction of property. And at the very least, the family could sue them in civil court for emotional damages.
also, how could they sue for emotional damages if they were not guilty of a crime?!
the real question: does the law, at the time the 'crime' was committed, give adequate and appropriate punishment and justice to those deserving?
edit: wording.
Whether or not the law provides adequate punishment depends on how far they got. The article suggests that the dug up the grave, but the cops arrived before any further damage was done. If they pay a good fine I believe they have recieved acceptable punishment. Had they gotten further I would like to have seen them sentenced some harsher punishment, such as a short sentence in prison or probation.
Narrow that down to just water. Milk in America had MONSANTO chemicals that cause disorders and some juices will have corn syrup or aspartame. Just isn't healthy to be living in America anymore.Hurricane wrote:
Fuck it, I'm just gonna drink water and milk and juice. I can't trust the damn FDA with my food.
Mostly. It has caffine and refined sugar. The caffine can cause an addiction, and it large amounts can create hormone imbalances. But it is relatively safe. The refined sugar can cause insulin resistence barring proper exercise and other nutrition. But regular coke is relatively safe.{HMS}_Sir_Del_Boy wrote:
So can someone please tell me if it's still safe to drink the normal Coca-Cola?
If there is a demand for immigration, it will only cause trouble to restrict supply.
The thing is, Paul will get nowhere if he continually attempts to abolish the federal reserve system outright. The fed cannot be removed without a replacement. He would have to legislate and design proper governmental controls and restrictions in its place, or he will simply have to settle for reform and revision. Reform is not unprecedented, the Fed used to be highly corrupt and mismanaged until the Great Depression when it was revised to include the board of governors. Minor revisions have also happened such as the removal of thrift banks as a classification. As for switching to the gold standard, he would be up against all the powers that be in our government which invaded afganhistan and iraq as well as the entire military industrial complex. He has no hope of finding light in that forest of corruption and greed.
Exactly. While they are not punishable for necrophilia, certainly there are felonies or misdemeanors for trespassing, theft, or destruction of property. And at the very least, the family could sue them in civil court for emotional damages.<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
I have to agree with Jonsimon, while it is entirely regrettable that they weren't charged and appropriately punished, vigilante justice and calls for cruel and unusual punishment are very easy to throw about and far harder to live with. The justice system exists for a very good reason and hopefully this particular loophole will now be closed, but surely they could've been charged with public indecency or desecration of a grave or something.
First, I see your point towards the Fed membership acting as a barrier to competition, though you have trouble articulating it. Your case would be easier to make if you simply pointed out the barriers to competition rather than providing an unneccesary lecture on the definition of a cartel. While the system does prevent competition, it also ensures a measure of stability. Your accusations in your third point, that the intended benefits of the Fed are non-existent, is inaccurate. While they may be accompanied by a trust-like barrier to competition (though barriers to entry are not significant), these benefits are still very real.topal63 wrote:
1.) Yes, the Federal Reserve is a banking cartel...
...Anyways, jonsimon, I hope that clarifies my position on the structure of our Federal Reserve (central banking) system.
The fixed dividends paid to shareholders are not truely significant, either. With the knowledge that all profits made by district banks are derived from either the member banks (the shareholders being paid the dividends) or interest earned on bonds held as part of open market operations the dividends appear to be closer to a redistribution of member bank capital rather than real profits. Your point here seems to be primarily for shock value.
Finally, a bond is not currency. A bond is a check or receipt representing a credit to be paid in cash. It is not as silly as you seem to think. Yes, it is a dollar plus interest, but it is a dollar plus interest minus inflation. Series EE and I bonds hardly beat out inflation and are an extremely low return, low risk investment. In the end, the value of the bond is intact, and the debt owed by the government is not greater in value than it was when the bond was purchased. I cashed in several Series EE bonds recently and only recieved 3-4% interest, just matching average inflation. Yes, technically the debt after a bond has matured is greater than that of printed notes over the same period, but alleviating all debt by printing money alone increases inflation and promotes poor fiscal practices.
You have helped to clarify your position to an extent, but it is difficult to sift through your seemingly condescending lectures.
AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO APPRECIATES IRONY?AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Pulled that one from way deep up your ignorant liberal ass did ya
People who stereotype are doing so from ignorance - of all races, religions, and politics - making ignorant blanket comments only perpetuates it.
No, Osama gauged America very well. As a terrorist, his only real power lies in the ability to bait nations into taking unwarranted action. I think he has done that very well.G3|Genius wrote:
actually, usmarine, i think that Clinton emboldened them by not doing anything after the 3 terrorist attacks against americans during his administration. Sure, he lobbed a few missiles at some empty buildings, but seriously, he did nothing.
Bin Laden seriously underestimated America when he ok'ed the 9-11 attacks.
Wow lol, I'm not even that interested in the whole deal. Would be interesting to see who I went up against though.Turquoise wrote:
If it's any consolation, you're one of the people I'd suggest for the next poll, jonsimon.
I didn't suggest anyone this time, because I wasn't aware of the nominating period or procedure...
Oh sorry, hadn't noticed they stopped being human when they made a mistake. If everyone that made a poor judgement call or had a weird fetish was killed? Well, you and I probably wouldn't be here right now.lowing wrote:
If you hold value in those mother fuckers lives then you are pretty fuckin' far out there jonsimon.jonsimon wrote:
Funny, I think people who hold such little value in life shouldn't be allowed to walk among us, let alone be given a weapon by the government.lowing wrote:
Do you honestly think I consider this crime an economic issue. I said that because I am indifferent to his worthless life, and his life isn't even worth money, let alone, moral value.
Yeah, it seems the primary difference is the lack of conflicts of interests. Hmmm, maybe I should pay off someone to nominate me. DST Lobbyists.ATG wrote:
It's only so strangers and cdgmns don't get nominated or voted in.
Supervotes confirm the mobs votes thus far.
QFEGorillaTicTacs wrote:
Nice broadcasts, but because they don't fit the message they'll most likely be ignored. What these two guys were saying isn't the least bit original or new, its common sense since the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Unfortunately, the msm have all been complicit cheerleaders for this (with very little redemption), and so this message rarely gets out to the mainstream.
The answer seems to be: To win the war on terror, clap louder!
Agreed.Ayumiz wrote:
Somehow i think, this is BS.
OH GOD PLEASE STOP WITH THE RETALIATION THREADS! I can't even keep track of which threads are responding to which anymore!
Don't forget cancer and insulin resistence!
I still think it's a little ironic that the voting system works much like our American voting system. In the end your vote doesn't matter because those at the top control the nominees and the outcome.
How many times has someone tried to impress you into sharia law in the last week? Month? Ever? I'm glad you're comparing yourself to the mongols. That seems appropriate.David.P wrote:
Dont act stupid. You know aswell as i do that Socialists will never understand what it's like dealing with Monsters. Oh wait but you call us monsters! For retaliating against terror and fighting for our freedom from Sharia law. But yet you allow the stoning of woman to go on with no criticism? Oh yeah thats right your too afraid to say shit to those that will hurt you. I cant wait to see how you will live under sharia law while Everyone who fought against them will be living, Drinking alcohol, Watching Pornos, Doing all the things we want to do with no fear of arrest or death. Go on Bubba fight for Sharia law in your country i cant wait to see the result(Unless a few people stop being afraid of them and fight back like the mongols who fought against Islam, Ya! You did'nt know they were provoked by Islam in the year 1203 and they fought back with more ferocity then the Caliphate could ever Imagine)Bubbalo wrote:
Suspicious of Iraqi males being insurgents?
In Iraq?
Your attitude towards capital punishment and lack of value for others' lives or mercy depicts you poorly.lowing wrote:
Can not blame anyone for defending their home town. But, violent, why would you call me violent? I have never been arrested, charged or even accuse of anything, let alone anything in a violent nature. Never beat my wife, or my kids. Helped coach my sons ball teams, helped out in my kids classrooms and on field trips etc......Pretty much my family is my life, not some bar or street corner or jail cell. Not sure where ya got me as violent. I guess from the same reasoning that has me pegged as a racist or bigot. When in all actuality, I have never spoken one racist or bigoted word on this forum.
anyway + 1 for your hometown
“You can’t back down, you can’t chicken out, you can’t be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim,” Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
here you go... right in Dearborn...
http://polipundit.com/wp-comments-popup … 01&c=1
And that makes him a terrorist how? Oh, right, I see, he committed himself to introducing sharia law. Oh wait, no he didn't. He held his hand over a different book when sworn in. So scandalous. He obviously wants to bring freedom and America to its knees.
Lowing the voice of reason? That's a good one. Few use more redderick or are more emotional. Voted bubbs.
A rose by any other name?lowing wrote:
Muslim threat probably not. Islamic radicalism, probably so.
You should be putting that spin to work, go be a spoksperson for some evil corporation.
Because bigotry isn't a mental disorder, it's a mental inadequacy.lowing wrote:
Hey, all of these posts already, all the name calling, and nobody will answer the orginal post? Why are you comforting the Muslims for MY Islamaphobia?
Stop tap dancing and answer the OP please.
Why would we want to sell our house? Dearborn is a great community, perfect for raising your son. Though, you are right, we'll probably be moving next year, don't want to be caught on this sinking ship called America. And yes, there is a huge difference between a muslim arab and a christian arab. Primarily the fact that they partake in two different religions. I'm just glad you left Dearborn, I'd hate to have such a violent person in my neighborhood. You're missing out on some great hummous too. Oh, and you're painting an innaccurate picture, there is more to dearborn than just the east side. Besides, what's wrong with a little culture in your town? Sorry lowing, but Dearborn isn't "converted" and muslims don't "own" the city. Dearborn is just a regular suburban city that shares with a strong cultural community.lowing wrote:
No you are right, living there makes you the fuckin' Dearborn expert alright. I was smart enough early on to get the fuck out from around that shithole, apparently you can't sell your house or you would be gone as well. I do know the difference between Muslim and Arabic, I just needed to paint the picture of your beloved town for what it has become. Honestly though, do you think there is a significant difference when it comes to a laid off auto worker who is trying to sell, no wait, give away, their house??
I spent a lot of my childhood in Detroit metro area. I do not miss it one bit
Funny, I think people who hold such little value in life shouldn't be allowed to walk among us, let alone be given a weapon by the government.lowing wrote:
Do you honestly think I consider this crime an economic issue. I said that because I am indifferent to his worthless life, and his life isn't even worth money, let alone, moral value.Braddock wrote:
I get it now ...death penalty is cheaper than the prison system. I have to hand it to you capitalists, you are consistent.lowing wrote:
No thanks, why would I wanna pay to have them live?
Iran starting to sell oil in Euros, just like Iraq switched, and Pakistan isn't.
Doesn't this thread constitute spam? There is another one by lowing discussing essentially the same topic.
Store signs in arabic and a couple mosques makes the city muslim? You don't seem to understand that arabic and muslim are different, either. Oh well, I'll let you roll and play in your ignorance like pigs in mud. You obviously seem to think that having been in east dearborn gives you more insight than living in the city for 18 years.lowing wrote:
"Dearborn's population includes 30,000 Arab-Americans, [2] [3] [4], the second largest, and the densest Arab population of any community outside the Middle East. (New York City has nearly 70,000, out of a total population of over 8 million.) Arabs first settled here to work in the automotive industry. In January 2005, a new Arab American National Museum opened as a result of this large concentrated population. The city is also home to the Islamic Center of America, the largest mosque in North America and the Dearborn Mosque, as well as a mosque in the South End that is one of the few places in the US where one can hear the call to prayer over a loudspeaker. Because of the Arab cultural influence on the east side of Dearborn, store signs and billboards written in Arabic are common sights."jonsimon wrote:
AHAHAHAHAHA! Wow, lowing, wow. MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY LIVING HERE FOR 18 YEARS. Dearborn has not been 'converted'. This is a genuine demonstration of the basis of your argument. Fiction. Fiction is the basis of your argument. You have no experience or observations of the condition of life here, and yet you will make a broad sweeping generalization. At this point it does not seem unreasonable to assume ALL your assertions are nothing but broad sweeping FICTIONAL generalizations.lowing wrote:
There are no problems in Dearborn with Muslims because the Muslims OWN it now, what in the world are you talking about??? Dearborn has has already been converted. It is what Miami is to Cubans.
Edit: Oh, and the correct answer to my question was money. The muslims that immigrated here were refugees that escaped their countries because they could afford to. They have money, friends, family, and freedoms. Because they are not deprived of these things they are not prone to crime. It is when you have large amounts of culturally linked poor immigrants that you have a community ripe for manipulation by a single extremist.
Sorry buudy, tell it to someone who has never been there, oh and if you are still there, good luck selling yer house.
AHAHAHAHAHA! Wow, lowing, wow. MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY LIVING HERE FOR 18 YEARS. Dearborn has not been 'converted'. This is a genuine demonstration of the basis of your argument. Fiction. Fiction is the basis of your argument. You have no experience or observations of the condition of life here, and yet you will make a broad sweeping generalization. At this point it does not seem unreasonable to assume ALL your assertions are nothing but broad sweeping FICTIONAL generalizations.lowing wrote:
There are no problems in Dearborn with Muslims because the Muslims OWN it now, what in the world are you talking about??? Dearborn has has already been converted. It is what Miami is to Cubans.jonsimon wrote:
So lowing, why hasn't Dearborn been overrun with mosques and terrorists and sharia law? Why hasn't any of that ever been an issue here? Why haven't we had city meetings where muslims show up in burkas to tell us the wonders of islam?
Edit: Oh, and the correct answer to my question was money. The muslims that immigrated here were refugees that escaped their countries because they could afford to. They have money, friends, family, and freedoms. Because they are not deprived of these things they are not prone to crime. It is when you have large amounts of culturally linked poor immigrants that you have a community ripe for manipulation by a single extremist.
So lowing, why hasn't Dearborn been overrun with mosques and terrorists and sharia law? Why hasn't any of that ever been an issue here? Why haven't we had city meetings where muslims show up in burkas to tell us the wonders of islam?
You're not the intended audience. But you know full well there are parents out there that are sheltered enough, paranoid enough, and concerned enough to try and shelter their children from the most minute offenses. You are not the motivation for the change, parents that are overcautious are.jsnipy wrote:
Well, as I am a parent and it is not the same version I grew up with, how would changing the story spare me from offense?jonsimon wrote:
This thread is so incredibly stupid. The maker of the book in the OP wrote it that way so as not to offend PARENTS.
Spare us from any further stupidity and tell us exactly how we should think.
Decomcrats != liberals. Just like usmarine and ATG have demonstrated conservatives != bush lovers.lowing wrote:
Also, can you not see that CAIR is totally opposed to free speech in America? Kinda like Liberals and the fairness doctrine. Funny the similarities
Hey lowing, I live in dearborn, muslim capital of America. Guess what, this lobby? They're wrong. Muslims are people just like us. They have wants just like ours. They don't want to be our evil overlords, they just want to make money and live happy like we do.lowing wrote:
CAIR Chariman Emeritus (Omaer Ahmad) once said “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” Other members of CAIR have stated that they would like “to see the US under Islamic law.”
From the biggest Islam lobbyist group in America and Canada, this is just here, are you telling me you have not heard any such rhetoric in Europe?
Now, who are you going to believe? A crazy politician with an agenda spouting rhetoric or the firsthand experiences of someone surrounded by the densest population of muslims in America?
Lowing is afraid that muslims are actually reasonable people with reasonable wants and needs. He is afraid that if we begin the process of understanding them, they will not be the crazy extremists he hopes they are. He is afraid of starting a process which can easily be aborted midway because the results might prove him wrong. Instead, he suggests we travel down a road of finality and fatality. He suggests we should assume we understand their motives and assume that our assumptions are infallible. He would rather be firm and unforgiving, regardless of right or wrong. So, he mocks and insults those who would be flexible and adaptive.
What if you need to start your car quickly?snuten_i_sjoholmen wrote:
I wouldn't mind spending half a minute with a Breathalyzer if everyone else also had those, because then I would feel much safer on the roads.
This thread is so incredibly stupid. The maker of the book in the OP wrote it that way so as not to offend PARENTS. They are afraid of offending parents, who purchase the books and have had a past record of irrational individuals liberally applying the civil court system to solve problems. They do not write the books that way for the children. Besides, what is wrong with that? Is it destroying your oh so precious American tradition? Are the terrorists going to win? Are you children going to grow up to spineless simply because something in a fairy tale was less violent? Do you show your kids disney movies? Because those are about as dumbed down as you can get.
Oh, and that "politically correct little red riding hood" was not politically correct, it was a joke. Anyone who took it seriously is a dumbass.
Oh, and that "politically correct little red riding hood" was not politically correct, it was a joke. Anyone who took it seriously is a dumbass.
Like they hadn't been spinning already? Their stories have already been watered down for generations, THIS IS NOTHING NEW!Zodiaccup wrote:
Whoever is responsible for this, the Grimm's will turn over in their graves.
Not to mention that infinite energy you blokes have invented with your perpetual motion machine over at steorn.CameronPoe wrote:
...as we here in Ireland are at the forefront of wind generation technology and the integration of it onto transmission systems.
Exactly.krazed wrote:
im pretty sure if you said no and turned away they would probably say you were being suspicious and arrest youarticle wrote:
TSA said the searches were “by-permission,” meaning patrons could decline to be checked. Those who did would not be turned away, an official said, unless they otherwise appeared to be a security threat.
In the US. It's great in places like south america where sugarcane is basically a weed they grows on its own.TheDarkRaven wrote:
I believe that it does 'release', as you say, the same amount of emissions. [EDIT] I meant in terms of CO2, which is all people seem to care about.
But the argument for ethanol use is that it is produced from plants which absorb CO2 for use in photosynthesis, thus making it a more viable fuel than normal 'gasoline'. However, the area required for arable production for the bio-ethanol fuel to replace 'gasoline' is so vast that it is impossible to use as a viable sole replacement.
False. It's used as an additive to reduce emissions. Wouldn't make sense if it released the same emissions, now would it?
Wiki backs me up on this one too.
Oh, and I didn't look it up before voting.
Wiki backs me up on this one too.
It emits equal net carbon dioxide, but less carbon monoxide.Wiki wrote:
Compared with conventional unleaded gasoline, ethanol is a particulate-free burning fuel source that combusts cleanly with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water. The Clean Air Act requires the addition of oxygenates to reduce carbon monoxide emissions in the United States. The additive MTBE is currently being phased out due to ground water contamination, hence ethanol becomes an attractive alternative additive.
Use of ethanol, produced from current (2006) methods, emits a similar net amount of carbon dioxide but less carbon monoxide than gasoline.[48] If all bioethanol-production energy came from non-fossil sources the use of bioethanol as a fuel would add no greenhouse gas.
Oh, and I didn't look it up before voting.
You forgot Article CXVIII:GorillaTicTacs wrote:
It is their right to do so as a soveign nation. The Geneva conventions clearly states in Article CXVII:jonsimon wrote:
They ate the last piece of pizza.hanbbu wrote:
It's obvious. Bush wanted to buy a pony from Iraq, but the government of Iraq didn't allow that. So Bush decided to start a war.If Iraq simply took the last slice of pizza, then they are perfectly within their legal rights. I believe Bush wanted the last slice AND the beer, which makes this war illegal from the start.Geneva Conventions wrote:
Anyone who is a member or participant in a lawful party may partake in EITHER the last slice of pizza OR the last beer in the pack, but my not, under any circumstance, take both.
Bush had explicit intelligence from a mole in Saddam's government that he did in fact intend to call dibs on the last of the pie. This information warranted a full scale pre-emptive invasion, esspecially when chocolate pie is at stake.Geneva Conventions wrote:
Addendum to Article CXVII: Anyone who has offically called "dibs" on the last piece of pie AND OR cake shall automatically forefit their entitlement to either the last slice of pizza OR the last beer in the pack.
"The verdict is a rare for journalists in Iran, despite constant state pressure on media workers."
Second line of your article contradicts you.
Second line of your article contradicts you.