PDA

View Full Version : 2010 General Election Thread


Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

baja
11-06-2010, 12:18 AM
Um...guy...biochemistry is the study of the metabolism of macromolecules. Fatty acids, amino acids, proteins, lipids, etc, etc,

Its the study of the systems in cells that deal with those molecules. Where they come from, how they are manipulated, and where they go.

If you eat 5 grams of fat, a biochemist can tell you which chemicals in your stomach react with that fat, what relative ratios of macromolecules of fat enter the tissues, which tissues process them, and then the systems that deposit those macromolecules in various places throughout the body.

I dont think you understand what nutrition really is.

OK carry on than. Ever seen a hospital menu?

epicSocialism4tw
11-06-2010, 12:21 AM
OK carry on than. Ever seen a hospital menu?

A hospital menu is supposed to provide diversion from the hospital experience. Kids dont get ice cream in the hospital because its a good food choice, they get it because it makes them feel better.

baja
11-06-2010, 12:23 AM
A hospital menu is supposed to provide diversion from the hospital experience. Kids dont get ice cream in the hospital because its a good food choice, they get it because it makes them feel better.

OK I am done with this. Guess you failed to read the links I provided.

epicSocialism4tw
11-06-2010, 12:33 AM
OK I am done with this. Guess you failed to read the links I provided.

Chief, you simply cannot convince me that doctors do not understand nutrition, because I know the education that doctors receive.

baja
11-06-2010, 12:46 AM
Chief, you simply cannot convince me that doctors do not understand nutrition, because I know the education that doctors receive.

I have many friends that are medical doctors and I ask them. They confirm that they have received precious little education on nutrition as it relates to disease. They don't make the connection.

“Let food be thy medicine…”
Richard Smith, editor (rsmith@bmj.com)
Mark Lucock ends his review of the science of folic acid by quoting Hippocrates: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” (p 211). Although many patients are convinced of the importance of food in both causing and relieving their problems,<b> many doctors' knowledge of nutrition is rudimentary. Most feel much more comfortable with drugs than foods, and the “food as medicine” philosophy of Hippocrates has been largely neglected.</b> That may be about to change. Concern about obesity is rocketing up political agendas, and a growing interest in the science of functional foods is opening up many therapeutic possibilities (p 180).

It was in 1931 that Lucy Wills described how yeast extract could be effective in preventing tropical macrocytic anaemia of late pregnancy. Folate was shown to be the crucial factor. In the 1980s a series of studies showed how periconceptional folate could prevent spina bifida. Then in 1995 came a meta-analysis that established that high homocysteine concentrations were a risk factor for atherosclerosis. Dietary folate reduces homocysteine, raising the possibility that a vitamin might prevent vascular disease. Next, several nucleotide polymorphisms were found to be related to folate, meaning that folate levels might influence the chance of developing cancer.

These discoveries are not surprising as folate metabolism is involved in many of the fundamental processes of life. Lucock describes, for example, how it is important for nucleotide biosynthesis. Thymidylate synthase, an enzyme that helps synthesise DNA, depends on a folate derivative. Low levels of folate may thus lead to breaks in DNA, predisposing to cancer. There are many other ways in which folate can affect gene function, and so folate is central to nutrigenomics—the study of the links between nutrition and gene function.

Folate may thus be a leading contender for panacea of the 21st century. Addition of folate to foods might reduce birth defects, vascular disease, and heart disease—and the Americans favour fortifying bread with folate. But folate being involved in so many of life's fundamental processes not only leads to its possibilities as a panacea but also to the prospect that “messing around with folate” could do extensive harm. The folate used in food fortification is not a natural co-enzyme, and nobody knows the long term effects of exposing whole populations to the unnatural folate.

There is thus great potential for good, some possibility of harm, and much uncertainty. The question of fortifying foods inevitably becomes highly political, and the politics of nutrition are just as complex as the science. Owen Dyer tells how the United States government—lobbied by food manufacturers—is trying to undermine a report by the World Health Organization on Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Disease (p 185). My unadventurous prediction is that we will be hearing much more about the science, medicine, and politics of food. Hippocrates would be pleased.

baja
11-06-2010, 12:49 AM
Hippocrates: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food”

Dukes
11-06-2010, 08:02 AM
I know several people who are working on cancers.

They are getting closer every day, and new ideas are being worked all over the place.

I wouldnt be too worried about whether or not people are trying, because they are.

It's just one of those topics where it wouldn't surprise me if there is a cure, they just won't release it because they're making so much money on treating it.

TailgateNut
11-06-2010, 02:28 PM
It's just one of those topics where it wouldn't surprise me if there is a cure, they just won't release it because they're making so much money on treating it.

Erasing all doubt.

Dogsweat
11-06-2010, 09:13 PM
America's new Master in 2012 will be:

http://www.usernetsite.com/society/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-hockey.jpg

baja
11-06-2010, 09:19 PM
scary

Dukes
11-06-2010, 10:16 PM
America's new Master in 2012 will be:

http://www.usernetsite.com/society/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-hockey.jpg

Not a chance in hell

Dukes
11-06-2010, 10:17 PM
Erasing all doubt.

So your saying corporations aren't greedy now? That and nonsensical anger are your cornerstones.

Killericon
11-06-2010, 10:29 PM
America's new Master in 2012 will be:

http://www.usernetsite.com/society/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-hockey.jpg

I have no idea who will win in 2012, but I would bet good money that it won't be her running against Obama, but this guy:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/files/2010/04/newtgingrich1011.jpg

epicSocialism4tw
11-06-2010, 10:54 PM
Huckabee ran the most favorable numbers against Obama in a recent poll. Ahead of Romney, Gingrich, Palin, etc. Palin was the only conservative that polled negatively against Obama. Everyone else beat him.

Dukes
11-06-2010, 11:21 PM
Huckabee ran the most favorable numbers against Obama in a recent poll. Ahead of Romney, Gingrich, Palin, etc. Palin was the only conservative that polled negatively against Obama. Everyone else beat him.

Polls also had Tancredo even with the Looper. Just sayin.

TailgateNut
11-07-2010, 02:59 AM
So your saying corporations aren't greedy now? That and nonsensical anger are your cornerstones.


Not too swift, are you?

Dukes
11-07-2010, 07:39 AM
Not too swift, are you?

Obviously not as swift as you. Old man.

Rohirrim
11-07-2010, 10:32 AM
America's new Master in 2012 will be:

http://www.usernetsite.com/society/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-hockey.jpg

And here I thought America was a country that didn't believe in "Masters." Seems like there is a lot about America that the Right wants to change.

Dogsweat
11-07-2010, 11:48 AM
Or a Mormon Master in 2012......?

http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/caglecartoons13/romneyok_785397.jpg

TonyR
11-08-2010, 10:51 AM
How Obama Enables Rush
by Rick Perlstein
November 6, 2010 | 8:31pm
President Obama lowered taxes. Why doesn't the country know that? Rick Perlstein on how Rush Limbaugh helped mislead a nation—and why the Democrats let him get away with it.

We live in a mendocracy.

As in: rule by liars.

Political scientists are going crazy crunching the numbers to uncover the skeleton key to understanding the Republican victory last Tuesday.

But the only number that matters is the one demonstrating that by a two-to-one margin likely voters thought their taxes had gone up, when, for almost all of them, they had actually gone down. Republican politicians, and conservative commentators, told them Barack Obama was a tax-mad lunatic. They lied. The mainstream media did not do their job and correct them. The White House was too polite—"civil," just like Obama promised—to say much. So people believed the lie. From this all else follows.

And it was all too predictable.

Consider February 24, 2009, when, after four glowing weeks in office, Obama delivered his first, triumphant, address to a joint session of Congress. Two weeks earlier, he had signed the $700 billion stimulus bill. This was his speech defending it.

That was the one in which Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, looking like a cross between a deer in the headlights and a 10-year-old delivering a prize school report, delivered the Republican response. You remember! He singled out for excoriation the $140 million in stimulus spending "for something called 'volcano monitoring'"; this happened to be about a month before a volcano erupted, releasing a 60,000 foot cloud of ash near—dot dot dot—Wasilla, Alaska.

On CNN, David Brooks followed Jindal. He called the governor's "stale, government-is-the problem" rhetoric "a disaster for the Republican Party," and excoriated those who insisted on hugging tight to it as "insane." The people appeared to agree. In a snap poll, 92 percent of those surveyed had a positive reaction to Obama's speech—68 percent a very positive reaction. Only 8 percent had a negative reaction.

The next morning I tuned in to Rush Limbaugh. I was fascinated to see how the hell he might respond.

Like a deer in the headlights? Not quite. The first caller, though a self-professed ditto-head, took objection to Rush's argument that Obama had revealed himself in the speech as a tax-and-spend liberal. The caller quoted Obama's words: "Because of this plan, 95 percent of the working households in America will receive a tax cut –- a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks beginning on April 1." (Which was true: People did.)

Rush responded, fluidly and without a gram of doubt. "Pay no attention to what Obama says. He means the opposite in most cases. What he says is irrelevant."

So the guy to whom all Republicans must kowtow on pain of political death had just laid down a marker that everything Obama said was a lie.

What if the White House had in those months in early 2009 put in the rhetorical forefront a story about Rush's tens of millions of listeners, and all politicians who refused to denounce Rush, were effectively saying anything the Chief Constitutional Officer of the United States said was a priori a diabolical lie?

But Obama didn't. That would be the "old politics of division." Not Obama's bag.

This would have been one of many opportunities to wedge the opposition between the authoritarian nihilists and the "constructive" Republicans who had America's best interests at heart. Instead, the nihilists got to tell the story that endures in the day-after punditry from last Tuesday: that the electorate "rejected Obama's agenda."

The vector worked, and works, like this:

(a) A mountebank teaches his millions of followers that everything the president says is a priori a lie;

(b) The mainstream media that acts as if anything his millions of followers believe is a priori deserving of respect as heartland folk wisdom (note the cover article lionizing Limbaugh in this week's Newsweek);

(c) The president unilaterally renders himself constitutionally incapable of breaking the chain between (a) and (b), such that, (d), the assumption that Obama raised taxes when he really lowered them becomes hegemonic for a majority of the electorate, and even a large plurality of Democrats.

Q.E.D.: Governing has become impossible.

When one side breaks the social contract, and the other side makes a virtue of never calling them out on it, the liar always wins.

When one side breaks the social contract, and the other side makes a virtue of never calling them out on it, the liar always wins. When it becomes "uncivil" to call out liars, lying becomes free.

>And dammit, the essence of Obamaism as an ideology is that it is Uncivil to Call Out Liars.

So you find him at a press conference, the day after the midterm elections, saying with all apparent sincerity that he agreed the majority of Americans participated in a "fundamental rejection of his agenda"—who, that is, implicitly believe he raised their taxes.

When he really lowered them.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-06/obamas-tax-cut-how-rush-limbaugh-misled-the-country/?cid=hp:mainpromo2