but then us carnivores use our protein enriched brains and notice that its 'processed meats' due to the sodium nitrate (salts(brine) thats pumped into meat as a preservative/additive that is the threatening carcinogens.. not the meat itself.
which then just means get organic farm frozen or farm fresh meat thats not got 'preservatives' in it

or if you want to fight the vegan radical about the whole 'cancer' thing. just tell them about the salts and tell them that instead of buying meat thats preserved. your instead gonna go hunting and get meat fresh off the bone while its still warm.. as your own radical response


[/quote]

Exactly, that is how we evolved, by eating high quantities of animal proteins, not to mention fat to endure long winters. Animal protein is needed for the body to function properly, the problem is the salts and crap they put in the meat to preserve it.
[/quote]

I don't think we know for sure about the additives, not sufficiently so to justify paying the higher prices for "organic."

Say for example a person bought only organic, but used plastic containers in the fridge and microwave. Bad things can leech out of plastics, too; particularly when they are heated up.

Now here are two suspect areas, nitrites and plastic components. but there are MANY others.

That's the nature of our world today.

I agree, congress doesn't have subpoena rights, that's a court function. These various guys didn't understand that. But what was this about? I lost track...

I think that's a vague attribution as to cause, and a Hail Mary Pass as to effect, as are almost all attempts to define healthy. But here's a interesting take on the subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/01/bacon-cancer-processed-meats-nitrates-nitrites-sausages

OKAY but you gotta be careful and stay suspicious around these molevegans. They infiltrate our culture for decades. They have long term plans, First they side with the ones who'd like bacon off the menu. Then they solemnly agree with the Scientists That Say beef is bad. Then it's the oils that the chicken is fried in. But really, it's the gradual, relentless march of the anti-meateaters.

I suggest everyone carefully consider those who would take away our Zero Amendment, the right to eat tasty meat.

Here is study material on this subject.

http://www.ooze.com/pweeta/

How about we eat them to extinction?

Ideas like this are definitely worth supporting on a trial basis.

Okay, here's my response. Call the committee main number, or call that ass-hat running it. You will get a frazzled kid at the front desk. Tell him you want to see actual subpoena papers.

You'll get one of three or four answers, I do not know which, but it will likely be an interesting conversation.

That's a fair criticism of my comment.

I actually have no clue as to the %age.

Offhand I'd think it was comparable to the gay/lezzie movements, where there are incredibly obnoxious loudmouths "speaking for the movement" and they have zero similarity to the average gay or lezzie who is a totally normal person

Every committee has a website link to the work and work in progress.

In reality, the world wide rocket launch schedule is published and well known for years into the future.

https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/launch-schedule/

No, that isn't even close to a definition of global warming.

Climate is pretty much defined as successive ten year averages in climate. So for the period 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015 one would have a single data point for 1990, 2000, and 2010.

That's pretty much what your much ballyhooed charts have. Three data points. And no, GW does not imply <<<long laundry list of Biblical disasters

Puzzles me.

Because the only way to make forward progress is to correctly understand things. But if that is made difficult or impossible by way of alternative facts and smokescreens, then real world problems cannot be solved.

I think those are all good questions and valid comparables. By looking at these all together creates a frame of reference for all killing of other animals.

But I still like the idea of Vegans having to carry the animals they saved around.

And don't forget delicious Bacon. A lot of cults would tell us we shouldn't eat pigs.

I think those are all good questions and valid comparables. By looking at these all together creates a frame of reference for all killing of other animals.

But I still like the idea of Vegans having to carry the animals they saved around.

Okay, but consider the bolded above. Whether the reality behind XYZ could be used as ammo to attack Political Party cannot be a defense against investigating XYZ, when the very question is where there is WRONG behind XYZ. Then the so called "ammo" is "evidence of wrong". That's kind of important.

At the same time, it seems investigating might clear the Political Party or some parts of it? I honestly don't see the problem with that. They know they've had some bad apples. We know that. Why not get this all over and move on?

As for Ukraine vs Russia. A lot of people don't even really understand these are different countries, let along understand their current relationship with each other. Let alone the history. For sure include "Media Reporters" in this level of "totally ignorant gufus" category.

I don' have the impression that it reduces to Ukraine(2016 involvement yet to be understood) vs Russia(2016 involvement detailed out to date). Could be both, Crowdstrike owner = Ukrainian oligarch, for example.

Well, that's the very reason why cops train with pop up targets, in which some are innocents and some are the bad guys. But not all cops get such training. A lot of police departments only require firearm training to be one box of 50 shells at a range PER YEAR.

No, that's really not a "report on human-caused climate change", and it's not "full of evidence."

Rather it's a strange and odd bit of advocacy for "social and ecological justice."

If "debunked," why did Trump ask the Pres of Ukraine to look into it?

I guess what I'm asking is this. Do you know better and more than Trump?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9PY_3E3h2c

There's no reason to continue your comment past that one statement.

It make well be "complex" to those that get degrees in it, but they have less intellectual ability than people that get degrees in astrophysics or straight physics.

Please don't confuse confusion of the mind in the confused with anything other than what it is.

Well, four years later that sciency guy was proved wrong.