Y2HH

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) HAHAHAHAHA said in a thread about CHICK-FIL-A! awesome. i love 'murica. So are you saying people only eat food like this in...um...'murica? I have some bad news for you.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 20, 2012 -> 12:39 AM) I'm always reading.... You should partake in the conversations!

There are some truly sick people out there. I hope this piece of garbage dies a slow painful death.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 05:02 PM) They are not free for most people in most states. A national ID (passport card) costs over $30. In Texas, a state ID costs $16. You can argue that this is not a seriously high cost, but its still a barrier to voting - and one that costs money to overcome. Paying money to be able to vote sounds an awful lot like a poll tax to me. I don't like the idea of a cost to vote...as a matter of fact voting taxes are illegal. That said, the basic necessity of an ID in modern times seems like a "get me over"...like being required to register for the draft. And these states, for the sake of basic identification, should be required to give them out for free to people who cannot afford them. Even if they do them like FOID cards, where you send in a picture of yourself along with the form and they send it back...at least have something that can be used to identify yourself in some form or fashion other than your word. As for the voting requirement, that's another ball of wax I don't intend to get into...my views on voting are a far cry from the accepted societal norm, and I know that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 04:59 PM) They get by now without it. Besides the point. Maybe people need to do more than just "get by".

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) There's no requirement that someone possess a photo ID. Getting one would otherwise be useless for hundreds of thousands and represents an unnecessary expense and burden. Of course, it'd primarily hit Democrat-voting demographics and it's pushed by Republicans to fight a non-existent problem. Some have explicitly said that these laws will win elections for Republicans and other studies show a strong correlation between support for these laws and racial animosity. Unnecessary regulations to fight non-existent problems that have real, measurable impact on eligible voters. For me this has nothing to do with voting. It has to do with having valid/official picture ID so you can validly and easily identify yourself in times of need. It's 2012. We live in an increasingly digital world where proper identification should be carried at all times by all peoples, or at least some demographic over age 15 or so. At some point in their oh so busy lives, they can find the time/transportation to get a f***ing ID...they're already free for people.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 04:34 PM) The fact that there are still people without a valid state ID? Yea, I kind of agree with this. It's 2012...and I know all of the excuses, such as it's too far, costs too much, etc...which I find to be exactly that...excuses.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) Boehner, Rubio distance themselves from Bachmann and her bats*** crazy letter. The fact that we have people like her in power is frightening.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) I'm sorry, I was trying to say something so outrageous that people would know it was a joke without being in green. I guess I failed. It's not a joke, even if it is to you, because there are a lot of people that actually feel that way. Green text or not...

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 11:47 AM) They are already discriminating against Atheists, Muslims, and Jews by being open 6 days a week but not Sunday. The ACLU should file a huge lawsuit to try to force them to be open on Sunday. In fact, the ACLU should file a lawsuit against every single business that isn't open on Christmas and force them all to be open. I don't think that's any of the ACLU's f***ing business. If a business wants to close it's doors on Sunday, regardless of reason, it's up to them to do so. I see no grounds for you, or anyone else -- for any reason -- to be able to tell a business when it has to operate. That's just ludicrous. If you don't like how they operate, or what days they operate for whatever reason...don't support them by eating there.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 11:42 AM) If I was to throw out a suggestion in the touristy/nice places in the downtown area I would say Purple Pig is up there. And its so funny that in chicago there is actually pretty good thai food, but our chinese food is essentially garbage outside of chinatown. I cant figure it out. You have to be careful eating Chinese food in China Town, too...growing up in the area...90% of those places should be condemned/shut down by the health department. There are some good Chinese places outside of China Town, too...but most Chinese food tends to be meh, IMO. I've been to many places...and I know bad chinese food...and I know good chinese food...but I've yet to find great chinese food, say, compared to having amazing sushi and just good sushi...

Never had it, never really cared too do so. But I wouldn't avoid them for some sort of ideological reason...I just don't care enough. I heard they treat their employees better than a lot of such places, however...but that may or may not be true, since I never bothered to look it up.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) True on my knees, however I could have pushed back the onset of it according to my doctor by having much better flexibility and NOT using those barefoot-type shoes. I accelerated the issue by being extremely active and having basically no flexibility in my legs and hips. Those barefoot type shoes are more often than not bad for people who are used to wearing normal gym shoes who have probably formed poor/bad running habits over the years due to the increased cushion they've always used. The idea, when running, is to come down on the balls of your feet (toes first), which you can do with regular gym shoes, as it lessens the impact on your knees. The problem is if you've already formed bad habits (heel first impact), and switch to those barefoot shoes, odds are you'll still run with heel impact, only now you have no padding to cushion the blow to your knees. The idea behind them was to retrain you to run properly...but that doesn't work for a lot of people.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 12:50 AM) I'd like to hear more about your take on "natural" foods and the like. Much of the problem with the "natural" or "organic" movement is it's been hijacked and bastardized to the point that the word organic has lost it's luster. To begin, natural and organic are not the same. USDA Organic, which is an actual label, must meet strict standards set by the USDA about farming/growing/etc., which then allows you to use their stamp on your packaging and avoid possible lawsuits and fines. Natural means...well...it means exactly nothing. There are no standards in which you can or cannot use the natural label, and this is how they [corporations] hijacked the industry. Rather than saying it's organic, because it's not...they instead label it natural. They realized that to most people, the two words are interchangeable...even though they aren't. When producers found that you could charge hefty premiums on anything labeled organic, or in this case "natural", they set out to do exactly that. There is also a difference in labeling your food "Organic", vs "USDA Organic". The label of organic, without the USDA in front of it means the food must be 95% organic. Well...that 5% can make all the difference in the world when it comes to "cheating the process". That said...even though they only used 5% pesticide, or some other biological means to cheat, they can still use the word...and it's vastly cheaper for them to produce it that way. The other issue is, as with anything, there is a lot of misinformation that's been passed off as fact over the years, to the point that people often repeat things they've heard about organic vs inorganic without bothering to do any actual research for themselves. A bit of ideology has crept into the discussion, so because people feel so strongly about the subject, they tend to not care what the science actually says...all they know is it makes them feel better inside. Is organic more nutritious? They don't really know. They've been studying this for over 40 years and the results are often inconclusive...one study will show the organic foods yielded higher levels of vitamin C, but another study will show the inorganic counterpart did the same. Overall, actual research/science have concluded that (thus far) there is no nutritional difference, no matter how badly people wish their was. Some information from the Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255/ More misinformation people accept as fact: Cooking vegetables destroys nutrients. I've heard this repeated a number of times, and it's a half truth at best. This is more complicated than a simple true or false answer, because while cooking can destroy small amounts of unstable water soluble vitamins, primarily Vitamin-B and Vitamin-C (ascorbic acid), it doesn't do much to other types of vitamins, and it also doesn't completely kill them as some people like to believe. An uncooked Vitamin C filled veggie will only retain about 10-20% more vitamin C content than it's cooked counterpart, but the trade off is they've found people tend to eat way more of a vegetable if it's cooked...so you easily make up the difference in any lost vitamin content. Now, to take this further, cooking can do the opposite when it comes to vitamin A. For example, cooking carrots actually increases the amount of beta-carotene in them. Also, microwaving those same vegetables seems to preserve the Vitamin B/C...because it's direct heat that seems to hurt them. Whenever a subject becomes something of an ideology to a group of people...such as health and nutrition...be sure to research what you hear, which will be backed by actual scientific studies. People tend to have a causal (NOT casual) mentality when it comes to diet and it's affect on their bodies...to highlight a quick example, when people come down with food poisoning, they will tend to look for a cause in the last 24 hours. Almost every time, they will look for the worst thing they ate nutritionally (in their opinion), or the thing they disliked they most in that time span, and that's what they will blame. They won't just blame it, but they will *know* it was the cause. Reality, however, tends to disagree almost always...because more often than not, it takes more than 24 hours for food poisoning to set in...and goes back as far as anything you ate in the previous 72 hours.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 19, 2012 -> 07:47 AM) Really? It makes NO sense? Modifying corn so that it already has the pesticide INSIDE IT isn't bad? the corn is produced so that if an insect eats it, that insect dies. So the corn is deadly to insects but can't POSSIBLY cause any adverse reaction in humans after long-term exposure? Monsanto REFUSES to even test whether there could be negative effects (or any effect for that matter) on humans. Why the hell should we eat something that hasn't been vetted by science? It's ludicrous and unsafe and downright despicable on the part of the company. The question is how much of this is FUD and how much of it is factual? I've not done much research on GMO's, other than some basic reading, and while I don't like the tampering we're doing with GMO's that produce natural pesticides (like you mentioned), I have no issues with GMO's that produce massively bigger crop yields. If we only grew organic foods (truly organic), the amount of edible food we produce in the world would fall by a massive amount...and the world is only getting more populated, not less...so we sort of need to find methods as GMO's produce...but hopefully do it in a safe way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 09:47 PM) You automatically lose with alito Edit and his attempt at nominating meirs That doesnt suddenly make the other 2 non existent, the only 2 that seem willing to cross partisan lines to any degree. I know at least one of them was a GW appointment. So he gets credit for that.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 09:23 PM) http://www.starofsiamchicago.com/ go there. love that place. unless it's too far north... in which case... go anyway That's the same one I was going to say.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 09:27 PM) On another note. Did Beast: Cardio today in the Body Beast program. It's actually a really great workout, but Sagi avoids the tougher moves by checking form. But I mean I get why... there's nothing funnier than seeing a Russian Body Builder trying to do high knees. What is this, p90x with more of a focus on weight training with heavy weights for pure strength gain?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 09:15 PM) there's the kicker. everything else we're now in agreement with more or less. what a successful debate! a soxtalk rarity. Unfortunately, most people can't have educated discussions without wanting to hear what the other person says. You have no idea how many times I've had the organic argument with people that refuse to believe how bastardized the word has become. Regardless of what I try to show them, they don't believe it...if it has the word stamped on it...it's better. At first, I was fearful you were one of them, too...I was happy to see you weren't. As for GMO's...I don't like it when we mess with stuff without understanding the possible consequences...this is just another example of us tampering with mother.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 08:33 PM) Nah, as much as I'm not a fan of Obama, there's substantial difference between him and Romney. Notably in potential SC replacements, which are a President's longest legacy. I'd have to say two of the most fair minded SC appointments in the last generation were made by GW. As a matter of fact, one of them just sided with the ACA. And you don't just to get to replace SC members at will...they have to willingly retire (or die) for you to do so.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 09:05 PM) so many things to say. 1. I don't trust government subsidized science all that much when it comes to food. 2. Agree on organic. Disagree on fish/chicken. Caged chicken eat corn. Corn provides zero nutrients but makes them fat. So you get big ole breasts and half the nutritional value. Fish that swim in the ocean have more muscle mass and a better omega 3/6 ratio than their farmed counterparts. Farmed fish are lacking in color (salmon) because they're lacking in nutrients and are much fattier - and not with the good kinds of fat. 3. Our life expectancy in America is driven up by all the invalids in hospitals who can't f***ing do anything but thank god they're still ALIVE!!!! You should die when you should die, and in aboriginal cultures they do. 4. I didn't say zero. I said close. Still probably hyperbole, but I do that - you may have noticed. 1. Good. Neither do I. 2. While corn fattens chickens, it doesn't fatten the breast...they do that via cross breeding for breast size. Chicken breasts are almost devoid of fat regardless of what they eat...there just isn't fatty tissue there. I agree on wild caught fish...take it from me, a fisherman ...I can filet, skin, etc...any sort of fish you bring me. There is a vast difference in quality between the two...but that said, these fish today are full of mercury to an alarming point. IE, there is more mercury in one piece of salmon than there is in every shot/immunization you've ever had...combined. 3. This is quite possible...but I don't necessarily agree with the you should die when you die...if we find scientific means to keep people alive, and healthy...I see no issues with doing so. 4. So do I. You may have noticed, too.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 09:03 PM) So what if you would have been a lazy fat slob? Wouldn't have mattered? Not sure, it's possible the same exactly thing would have happened, or because of size difference in my body, those nerves would never have been touched. Either way, I wouldn't have wanted to live like a lazy fat slob, I still don't...but I'm also not under some false impression that you can easily defeat genetic defect or predisposition just by eating organic food.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 08:59 PM) and i can tell you're bitter that things didn't work out for you, but you're making a lot of assumptions. i've been dealing with vocal problems for the last 9+ months now. and that's no small issue for an actor and singer. I wasn't able to audition for jobs at all for months. It strained me financially (not working, paying for therapy, etc), it strained me mentally and emotionally, and it put strain on my relationship. It's something I'm still fighting with. You see guys with vocal cords of steal who trash their voices and sing a rock show the next day, no harm done. Well that ain't me. Because of Laryngeal Reflux coupled with abuse of my voice, I've gotten into this neverending cycle of: cords are hurt so they produce mucus. cords covered in mucus so I can't sing as well. can't sing as well so I strain my muscles to make it work. strained muscles create more mucus. over, and over, and over. Life ain't rainbows and unicorns for me either, so quit making judgments. That is what spurred me to start living healthy. To exercise. To eat well. So far, both of those things are having an incredibly positive effect on my voice. Things aren't near perfect yet, but they're getting there. And for the record, I'm not talking about eating broccoli. I think you and I have two very different concepts of what it means to eat well. Unless it's organic broccoli it's devoid of most nutrients anyway and full of pesticides. I'm talking things like coconut, flax, quinoa, chia seed, camu-camu, goji berry, acai, ginko, i could go on and on and on. (and yes for those of you keeping score at home, many of those things are in Shakeology). It's eating most of your carbs from veggies. It's not eating flour or bread or bagels or crappy processed foods. It's eating fermented foods to make sure you've got GOOD bacteria living in your gut. It's eating a healthy ratio of omega-3s to omega-6s, something hardly ANY American does. You're telling me you did ALL THAT? For the 15+ years up until your issue? (not counting when you were a kid obviously). You are absolutely right in that I shouldn't be making judgements. I apologize for doing so. And you have my sympthies for going through what you've gone through. But you again lean on organic. Inorganic foods have the SAME vitamin quality as their organic counterparts. I'm not sure where you've hear they don't. Yes, throughout my 20's, I ate properly, steamed veggies, brown rice, boneless skinless chicken, egg whites, salmon, fish oil, etc...all of it. That's unfortunate for me and anecdotal at best, but that's what happened.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 08:45 PM) It's sounds to me like Reddy has gotten his hands on "In Defense of Food," by Michael Pollan. Y2H, do you think you would have been worse off had you not taken great care of yourself in your twenties? No, it was because of where it happened (randomness), swelling which happened to press against nerve clusters in my solar plexus. It was random chance, nothing more. Had this occurred mere millimeters elsewhere, the pain would have been minimal.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 18, 2012 -> 05:49 PM) here's the crazy thing. while yes, genetics are hard to avoid, just by eating right (and i mean ACTUALLY right, not what typical americans think of as "healthy") you can avoid all SORTS of diseases - even diseases you're genetically predisposed to. 1) You can *possibly* lessen your chances of said diseases by eating right. That's as far as science backs you up on this. No farther. 2) Some of this is true, some if it unproven, and some of it is false. Antioxidants have been studied and shown mixed results at best in actual studies: (http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/food-nutrition/facts/antioxidant4.htm). Organic foods are not proven to be any better for you than their inorganic counterparts...and at times can even be worse, as organic foods still contain pesticides...only they must contain organic pesticides...which can be worse for you than their synthetic counterparts. That said, other variations of organic foods, if they are actually organic foods, can be a healthier choice. Unfortunately, since the organic craze started, the corporations have joined this bandwagon and have bastardized the meaning of the word, so most of the organic foods you see today don't meet actual criteria to be called that...but they're called that anyway. Yes, grass fed beef is better for you. Non-farmed fish is still an iffy proposition, because how do you know the mercury content or where the wild fish has been, or what waters it was exposed too? Free range chickens and their eggs are also proven worse for you than their caged counterparts, as free range chickens are exposed to fecies/manure-borne diseases...but they're a great marketing ploy that get people to pay 2x+ for eggs or meat that are no cleaner/safer or nutritionally better. We agree on enriched flour and heavily processed foods, however... 3) They also have lower life expectancies regardless. I'd need to show citations on this...but last I looked via the Australian census, aboriginals tend to live 8-10 years less than their western counterparts. I can't speak for Eskimos, however...I do not know their life expectancy...and I doubt they eat much processed food. Whatever it is, however, I doubt it's more than the average American...and we live in one of the top 2 most obese societies in the world. The longer we live, the longer we are exposed to coming down with one of these mega-diseases. That's just the law of averages. 4) No, you can't. You can possibly decrease it by some percentage points...but to zero? If you want to make statements like this...where is/are the scientific studies backing it?