Way too many Nazi references in this Republican race

I saw a great interview lately; Neil DeGrasse Tyson interviewing Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton said something that makes sense here. He said that Politicians hate science because in the political world going back on your beliefs is seen as 'flip floping' or not having conviction in your beliefs; but in Science that's the way it's supposed to work when you are presented with newer evidence that contradicts dogma.

Seems that Carson has amped up this, by over the top comarisons to the small moustached one.

Scientists these days are just as bad as politicians when it comes to going back on their beliefs.

The latest is the vegetarian from the World Health Organization pronouncing the evils of eating cured meats and red meat and promoting a vegetarian/vegan diet.

You'd never expect that this guy would say such a thing, would you?



Pictured: Kurt Straif

A douche like Kurt Straif isn't running for POTUS so what he thinks can be safely ignored.

When did they say it was good for us? I've been hearing for years that there may be link between nitrates in cured meats and colon cancer. Now it's been proven. The China Study showed a direct link between consumption of animal proteins (except whey) and all sorts of diseases that we see all too frequently in the western world. Now that China is starting the 'Western' diet, we see all the problems here surfacing there.

Most of the world eats vegetarian because meat is too expensive, and those same parts of the world have never heard of diabetes or coronary artery disease.

But what did any of that have to do with Nazi references in the Republican Presidential race?

eating meat by itself isn't necessarily what's harmful. a lot of it has to do with how it's prepared, what kind of meat, and how much. Inuit have evolved to receive vitamin C from meat because there is so little vegetation where they live. they had no such thing as cancer or diabetes until Henry Hudson set up shop and starting trading canned goods.


a lot of cultures eat vegetarian because it is a long-standing tradition, established well before anyone paid money for food.

and to bring this back on topic.. uh.. Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian?

Bullshit. Modern farming practices are a far larger cause of greenhouse gas emissions than all of our industrial output. The Innu didn't farm, they ate what the land provided. The same as a great deal of the planet does.

We clear huge swaths of land to plant soy to feed to animals. We take huge amounts of water to feed those animals and return it to the environment full of nitrates that kill the waterways, further depleting natural food sources.

A vegan in a Hummer pollutes far less than a meat eater on a bike.

Bullshit. Modern farming practices are a far larger cause of greenhouse gas emissions than all of our industrial output. The Innu didn't farm, they ate what the land provided. The same as a great deal of the planet does.

i'm not comparing traditional Indigenous food practises to factory farming, and we're not disagreeing about factory farming being an enormous environmental disaster of several degrees. i'm saying that a diet of strictly meat is not necessarily harmful, if the right factors are present.

also, Innu and Inuit are different people.



that, i'm not so sure about. the harm done is probably comparable.

that, i'm not so sure about. the harm done is probably comparable.

A cow produces between 100 and 500 liters of Methane a day depending on who you ask. Methane is 23 times the heat trapping gas that Carbon Dioxide is. Let's call it 250 liters per day, and equivalent to 5700 liters of CO2.

Calculating the density of Methane at 1 atmosphere, I get 0.64 g/L, times 5700 liters, that's 3.6Kg of methane per day. Or 1300kg per year, per cow. Let's say you can eat 1 cow per month (whether it gets eaten or not, it still was born, lived and died). That's 16,100 kg per year of greenhouse gasses.

According to to the , the Hummer H3T with the 5.3l engine emits 9.5 metric tonnes of CO2 per year. 9500kg, compared to the cow's 16,100kg.

I'd say they were not comparable. Double the CO2 emissions for the meat eater, and we aren't even counting things like the health risk, deforestation or ocean dead zones from excess nitrate runoff.

That's why I'm starting to not believe groups like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace when they whine about the Oilsands. Small potatoes, right beside the rib eye they had for lunch.

that, i'm not so sure about. the harm done is probably comparable.

A cow produces between 100 and 500 liters of Methane a day depending on who you ask. Methane is 23 times the heat trapping gas that Carbon Dioxide is. Let's call it 250 liters per day, and equivalent to 5700 liters of CO2.

[some car math, deleted for brevity]



it's not just the fuel burned that counts. it's what goes into producing it, and the machine which burns it, in the first place. oil, steel, and aluminum production all cause massive environmental damage in several ways which are not limited to carbon dioxide. both factory farms and resource extraction produce toxic waste, but the toxic waste from one has far worse and longer lasting effects than the other.

factory farming a few million cows leaves a lot of cow shit to deal with. normally we would fertilise our crop fields with it, but the amount produced actually poisons the land it is sprayed on, and any watersheds nearby. but since it is organic toxic waste, it will be a shorter time before it ceases to be toxic. mining tailings, on the other hand, contain heavy metals and are often radioactive, producing the same effect as exploding several dirty bombs in the same place every year, making that land uninhabitable for, at minimum, decades and, at worst, thousands of years.



i can think of better reasons not to take Greenpeace seriously. they are green capitalists, for one.

So, there's no steel, aluminum or oil going into factory farming?

If you are going to include all the secondary effects, try it for both scenarios to be objective.

sure they are, systems of oppression flock together. that's how capitalism works.

The problem with the denunciation of Carson in the article is that what he says is simply true.

A practicing Muslim should not be the leader of a nation of laws that are not founded in Sharia. Not unless you want him to work to impose Sharia...and I would not fault him for doing so.

And we should also take people at their word when they do things like Iran has done over the years:

1. For 35 years they've announced their intent to destroy Israel.
2. Of late they've said that they want to nuke Israel.
3. They're taking practical and measured steps to build a nuclear weapon.
4. They've reiterated their intent to use a nuclear weapon on Israel.

If someone in the US were to say that they wanted to commit a crime and then they took concrete steps to facilitate the commission of that crime then we'd intervene and prosecute them for conspiracy. I don't see why we don't take the Iranians just as seriously.

And the Hitler analogy in this case is actually spot on. The guy telegraphed his intentions for years and the liberals like Chamberlain kept insisting that Hitler didn't really mean any of that stuff he spouted off in his speeches. They preferred to pretend he was just joking even though he was building a serious military, had forcibly reoccupied the Ruhr, and had annexed Austria.

But, yeah. People ignored Hitler and millions died because of it.

Millions will die because Iran is also being ignored. But at least Obama won't be in charge when it happens so I guess it's okay.

If you believe that then compare Obama to Chamberlain, not to Hitler. A national health care program isn't Hitlerian. Mild talk about only reasonable people who abide by law & order being allowed to have firearms and not letting cranks/crazies/criminals have them isn't Hitlerian. Trying to make a rational deal with Iran that blunts their nuclear weapons programme but lets them re-enter the world community isn't Hitlerian. Asking some dumb-ass rancher to pay his perfectly reasonable and affordable fees for grazing on public lands, a policy brought into existence by none other than Saint Reagan himself, isn't Hitlerian. 230+ years of rational jurisprudence that says "no, you're not allowed to interpret the Constitution of the United States of America on your own to fit your own personal politics" isn't in the slightest bit Hitlerian.

Since when has it become so damn difficult, if not outright impossible, for Republicans not to automatically say the dumbest thing that pops into their minds? Why do they no longer even attempt to appeal to reasonable, intelligent, and educated people and instead concentrate strictly on sound bites for morons? Ben Carson is a smart man, as indicated by his professional reputation, but he's also simultaneously an idiot for the things he believes in politically, socially, and religiously. When does it end? When does the GOP grow up (again) and no longer troll among the lowest common denominator for it's support? This behaviour is unbecoming of any person who considers themselves even slightly rational and this perpetual ongoing angry stupidity is the main reason I've chosen to disassociate myself almost entirely from what contemporary conservatism has turned itself into.

I just don't see anything constructive coming from any response I could post to this so kindly don't take offense if I demur.