Y2HH

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 1, 2010 -> 02:34 PM) http://vvv.com/healthnews/milk.html http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM00Winter/GM00Win3.html This fact has been established for many years. Pick up a book like The China Study which chronicles decades-long research on the matter. EDIT: And this is my last post on this subject. Don't want to open up another can of worms on this topic. You can connect anything to cancer if you want to do so, via scientific studies or otherwise. If you don't believe me, go to WebMD and type in ** ANY ** ailment, and you can connect it to cancer of some sort in some way. Food, liquid, doesn't matter, in some way, shape or form, you can eventually connect it to cancer. Cancer simply happens, which is why Eskimos who have never smoked nor have been introduced to second hand smoke can still die of lung cancer. If it isn't milk, it's eggs, it's too many tomatoes, it's something. People need to stop worrying about what might happen in life and start living. Doing something excessively may raise the risk of certain cancers (like smoking everyday), but not doing them may not lower the risk at all. Unless you are eating asbestos, I wouldn't worry about cancer, because if your genetic code says you're going to get it...you are, even if you eat 50 tons of broccoli a day and never drank a glass of milk in your life.

IMO, there are only three good choices for a current phone (in no particular order) Incredible (Android) EVO (Android) i4 (iOS4) And of the EVO vs Incredible -- I'd pick the EVO. The Incredible uses a AMOLED display -- OLED in other words -- which is still an infant technology and inferior in every way that matters to current IPS LCD's. In another few years OLED screens will be the standard, and much brighter/better than they currently are (and usable outdoors), but until then, putting them in phone reeks of "look at us, stuffing the newest of the new technology in our device so we can brag about how cutting edge we are!". OLED displays are inferior at the moment, every one of them I've seen/used is inferior, not because the technology itself sucks, but because of how early in development it is. It *will* be better, it just isn't yet.

Too soon for another Droid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2010 -> 08:09 AM) So yeah, my state again this year just passed the "Bring your gun to the bar" bill. As a FOID card carrying person who doesn't own a gun/has never owned a gun, but did learn how to shoot them, I have to say I wouldn't even have a problem with the Chicago handgun ban if it worked...but it doesn't, not even a little. The number of shootings (some not resulting in murder, but injury) in Chicago, via the unregistered handgun in the hands of the criminal are staggering. Gun control will not *ever* work unless this state, this county/surrounding countys, this entire country, and every surrounding territory and other country/nation also banned them, prevented manufacturers from making them, and somehow removed the materials necessary to make them from existence...otherwise there would be a black market for the criminals to get them...and being criminals, they'd get them, and bring them where they were illegal -- sort of how they do it now. Unfortunately guns were invented, they aren't going to be uninvented anytime soon, and any "control" they [the government] pretends to have over them is an illusion, at best. The second a gun was invented, this was inevitable. For further examples of this problem, see Nuclear Fission [ABombs]. The second that was discovered/harnessed, it was just a matter of time before it started to fall into the wrong hands...and this is coming. You can make the materials illegal, the plans to create them illegal, and place sanction after sanction on all Nuclear weapons, and rogue countries like Iran will ignore them all, and still try to create them. It won't be stopped, and it won't be undone.

http://www.youtube.com/user/tinywatchprodu...u/0/UAOtC9QfXac LOL

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) Sometimes when you overhear a conversation and someone says something so wrong, you just have to stop and correct it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Eye_w/_Greg_Gutfeld It was a late night show with comedy, but it wasn't satire. Contrast with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1/2_Hour_News_Hour I stand corrected. I never watched Red Eye, so I didn't really know one way or another, but I didn't think it was a serious news show.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:58 AM) And what channel do you turn to when you want a left leaning opinion? You watch Olbermann and Maddow, and the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. You don't watch anything else on MSNBC, and you don't watch anything else on TV. You might go to PBS if there's a good frontline on. But if you want the left-side equivalent of Fox, you go to the internet, because none of those channels you want to call liberal come anywhere close to being liberal. LOL is all.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:55 AM) No not Red Eye, that was their attempt at a "hip" late night news show. It was just a bunch of douchebags. It was "half hour news hour". It was like 30 minutes of painfully bad, incredibly slanted Weekend Update/ TDS. WTF was a 'legitimate' news network doing promoting that garbage? Red Eye wasn't a news show, it was satire.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) And the idea that the TV media is dominated by the left is equally wrong, so I'm stopping and correcting it. But it is. When you want a right leaning opinion, what channel do you turn on? FOX. That's IT. Not NBC, not ABC, not CNN, nor CBS. Those *ARE* left leaning stations, so stop pretending otherwise.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:50 AM) Remember Fox's awful attempt at a Daily Show-like news satire? Man that was awful. I think that was called red-something or other, and yes, it was stupid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:48 AM) That's not what I said, I admitted them, I asked where their parallel was on Fox. Of course there are other liberals on TV, but there are plenty of conservatives on other networks as well. Like I said, if you wanted to pick your issue and start coming up with reports from FAIR, I'd start replying with media matters posts on how issue x that the Left cares about got no coverage, and all we'd do is go back and forth. Which is where we're going. No matter what I'd be willing to cite, you know you're right in the middle of the spectrum, and therefore anyone to the left of you must be liberal, and anyone who challenges that is insulting you. Don't get me wrong, on Fox there is PLENTY of conservatives, some of which disguise themselves as centrists (like Beck tires to do), but the majority of conservatives are in one spot -- and that's Fox. That's not the say there aren't a few others sprinkled elsewhere, but they aren't the dominating opinion on said stations. To pretend NBC, ABC, or CBS are "right" dominated, is f***ing ridiculous. I've heard liberals/dems say what that other guy said before -- that the tv media is dominated by the right, because it's exactly what he said, and it's just a ridiculous notion. That's all I interjected into this conversation to straighten out...because it needed to be straightened out. Sometimes when you overhear a conversation and someone says something so wrong, you just have to stop and correct it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:42 AM) I think the argument might be cutting the government program all together. The problem is, for me, is that there is no fair value pricing available. When you go to a car dealership, you see the price of the car. When you get your oil changed, you see the price of the oil change. This applies to ANYTHING but the health care industry. There are no prices, as they're all arbitrary. Need a knee surgery -- tell you what, we'll perform the surgery and THEN we will tell you how much it costs. This way you can't go compare pricing elsewhere. And if we happen to charge 30x times more than a friend of yours paid, we will simply say the surgery took longer for X, Y and Z, three things your friend didn't have to deal with -- and you wouldn't know one way or another, because there were 8 people roaming around the entire time doing god knows what. If they truly wanted to make things cheaper, they'd change this, so instead they "reformed the health INSURANCE industry", which accomplishes almost nothing in regard to the CORE problem, and that is simply -- nobody knows what ANYTHING in the medical services industry costs, and therefore cannot shop around for non ER care where you SHOULD have such a choice.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:39 AM) And there are zero parallels to Fox on the left. You'll fire back MSNBC with Olbermann and Maddow, and then I'll ask who the Fox version of Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan from the left are. It's only ridiculous because you're a conservative. I think it's just as ridiculous to declare everyone but Fox to be a bunch of liberals. Once again, I'm NOT a conservative. I'm as middle as middle gets. I hate BOTH sides. Our last president was a f***ing douchebag, and our current president is a f***ing douchebag. And if you honestly think Olbermann and Maddow are the only left wingers on TV, there is no point talking to you -- it's obvious you know next to nothing. And at this point, it's insulting to even try talking to you, as you're playing dumb on purpose.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:24 AM) Oh, so now you're in favor of the government cutting the bills that it pays to doctors and hospitals? Gosh, where have I been attacked repeatedly over that. Way to twist words. And no, that's not what I said, not even CLOSE to what I said. But thanks for playing. Talking to you is often hard. I say blue, and you CHOOSE to hear red, and you literally convince yourself I said red, despite the fact that I didn't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:23 AM) The problem is...you calling those news sources liberal has as much meaning as me saying they're conservative. For every example you give, I could fire back with another. You could give CBS and Bush's 2004 guard document story, and I could fire back with the Iraq war. You could fire off the Obama campaign as the media swooning over my guy, and I could fire back the Gore/Bush campaign for the media swooning over the Republican. We'd go around in circles, I'd call your articles from Bernard Goldberg crap, you'd call my Media Matters posts crap. First, we aren't talking about the past, we are talking about now. Second, I'm not even talking about one off comparisons of a specific instance in which the media agreed with someone. I'm simply stating that he said the TV and Radio was dominated by the right wing, and to even say/think that is an absolute joke. You could possibly argue the radio is more even, however, television is NOT -- there is *ONE* major right wing news organization in the ENTIRE US (FOX). To pretend otherwise is ridiculous, so just stop.

^^ LOL -- NSFW unless you have headphones, a little swearing involved...but still pretty funny when you think about the whole Apple culture.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:16 AM) The Trib is actually pretty much universally seen as right of center - I'm not sure how you put them on that list. The Sun Times is the liberal paper in town, always was. Trib at this point isn't very far right though, they might be basically in the middle. Whatever. Out of a list of 8 or so, I misplaced ONE. Remove the Trib from the equation and you STILL have a very left leaning operation here. And just stop with the "radio is dominated by conservatives" nonsense, because that's what it is, nonsense. There are just as many liberal commentators on the radio. Maybe you need to take your head out of the sand and actually turn on a radio, because it's obvious you haven't in about 20 years. And way to dismiss and gloss over the fact you said "TV is dominated by the right", which is the biggest joke I've EVER read on this website.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2010 -> 08:09 AM) Oh come on, this joke again. Let me state this as clearly as I can. You can not complain about our unwillingness to make "Entitlement" cuts, when you opposed any and all efforts to improve the health care system. The future budget deficit is entirely about health care. It was that way before the economic crisis, it was that way after it. When we tried to do anything about it, the money-saving public option was scrapped, things like end-of-life counseling became "death panels!" and the chorus of "Keep the government out of my Medicare!" was the common chant. This graph from a couple years ago has 1 extra bump on it because of the economic collapse, but it's really all you need to know about entitlement cuts. When something the government is paying for is growing at 10% a year every year, it is going to swamp the government out in every projection. Way to ignore my entire point and nitpick the healthcare debate out of it. Anyway. I once again repeat to those of you who continue to willingly choose to ignore me that I do NOT oppose any/all efforts to improve the heath care system. I opposed the effort they made because they did NOTHING to improve the healthcare system. They merely changed the INSURANCE SYSTEM...and while related to the healthcare system, they aren't the same in any way whatsoever. I once again repeat: The medical bills you will receive from your doctor have not changed, they have not gone down, and they will not go down because of this bill. Queue the same for the bill you will receive from the drug companies, hospitals, nursing services, etc. You attacked the wrong bad guy and accomplished nothing. Congratulations.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:33 PM) TV News media and radio news media is absolutely dominated by the right. Seriously, I have to step in here and bring some sanity back to the conversation. Do you *honestly* believe what you just said? Because that is so far from true it's not even funny. The fact you even wrote that/and or had that thought shows how biased you really are. Fox News is the ONLY right wing media on television. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the Chicago Tribune, NY times, Huff Post, Washington Post, Sun times are ALL liberal news organizations. For you to even pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Of that list, CNN is the closest to center as I've seen, but even they lean left. The radio is a bit closer, but even then, the right wing doesn't dominate. The only thing the right wing has is more popular/higher rated programs, but they have far fewer of such programs. Remove Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck from the radio and people would assume no conservatives existed on the radio waves anymore.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 27, 2010 -> 04:48 PM) I also support lower costs for health care. But I guess I shouldn't, because that would be deflation. That's not deflation. That's paying fair value for a service, two completely different things. And the bill they signed will do nothing to lower the costs of health care. It *may* slightly lower the costs of health insurance to *SOME* people in need, while raising it for others. But the bills the hospitals and doctors send to the insurance companies will remain the same and/or increase...this was a point of contention I've had about the bill since the start, it was ignored, especially around here. But give it time, you'll all see.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:49 PM) Ummm, I'm not sure what words you're trying to put in my mouth, but I believe programs cuts combined with moderate tax increases will be necessary to bring some semblance of sanity back to American public finances. It's not really an ideological argument. We would have to do this now, with the current entitlements we have (that we won't be cutting), in order to even *start* getting back to sanity when it comes to public finances. Make no mistake, there will be NO entitlement cuts in this country anytime soon, to even pretend there will be is what is insane, especially in turbulent economic times such as now. Cutting entitlements at this point is equivalent to punching your ticket out of office, so it's not happening, not now, and not in the near term future. We are expanding entitlements at record pace in addition to adding new ones, if anything. In order for these moderate tax increases to make even a small dent, we'd have to stop expanding anything and everything, let alone adding healthcare entitlements/subsidies to the equation (which we just did). And here is something some of you may not have expected to hear from me: Right now is the wrong time to cut anything -- the government is doing exactly as it should by expanding program funding and flooding the economy with money. This is how the system was designed. The problem is, when we do recover, they don't stop. In bad times, the government is supposed to spend, but when times turn good, the government is supposed to draw back and begin paying down everything it did during those bad times in order to float the economy.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 09:23 AM) I am just predicting. Once again I missed the the 2009 low by 6 spx points, not bad. But us technical guys don't know anything. Buy and hold....and lose.....How did that work out last decade.....I have been out of mkt since OCT 2007. Sleep like a baby....That number comes from the same amplitude move from the 2007 high........ I buy and hold, and I stayed in the market from 2000 until 2010 -- and I'm ahead, a lot. Explain that, please. First off, if you are a buy/hold person, 10 years isn't long term, it's relatively short term. 20+ years is longer term, even more so than that, 30 years is what I consider "long term". It's called saving for the future, not saving for today. That's the basis of buy and hold. What it's not called is buy and hold for 5 years and sell. You also seem to miss a big point/benefit of buy and hold. You don't buy things once and stop. You continuously buy them over time, so you are buying with the raises and dips, take a 401k for example. Over a span of 30 years, you will have bought shares at lows and highs, so long as you don't SELL at the lows, you don't care. Now if you do buy and hold with individual stocks, you can ALWAYS buy lows, as there are ALWAYS bargain stocks out there, you just have to look for them. If you buy 100 shares of Pfizer at 30 and it goes down to 10, and buy another 100 shares, that means you bought 200 shares at 15. Over a span of time doing this, you will end up with an averaged out cost, and in the mean time make money on the dividends, etc. The key when you are nearing retirement is to NOT be greedy and sell. You don't say, well it's at 25 now, but it might go up to 30 in the next year before I retire. You get rid of it and recognize when good enough is good enough. When talking about decades, there is PLENTY of such opportunities.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 28, 2010 -> 10:33 AM) This weekend was an improvement in Chicago though. Last weekend, there were 50 shootings, 8 deaths. That dropped to 30 shootings, and only 3 deaths the past weekend. And a vast majority of them with handguns, which are illegal and banned in Chicago!

Gun control doesn't work. Going over this again and again seems to produce no results. If gun control worked, Chicago would be have 0% or near 0% handgun violence...that's not working out that way, now is it? Gun control only stops law abiding citizens from owning guns, it does not stop the criminals, as most laws do not stop the criminal. And if you completely ban guns, you create another dangerous black market for the criminal enterprises to distribute them...so stop trying. The war on drugs is working out really well, too. It's a good thing drugs are illegal and you can't get them!

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 05:26 PM) ahh, so the bill sucks because it has no cost controls but you hate the program with cost controls, makes sense. I'm going to go jump out this window but also stay right here and not do that. Once again, not paying someone what you owe them is NOT a f***ing valid cost control. Sometimes you people make me wonder...seriously. Read the article. Medicare is 1) not paying at all or 2) not paying what they promised they'd pay. I REPEAT, THAT IS NOT A VALID COST CONTROL. It's called stealing.