Ten oz

If you and JC are smart enough to include qualifiers like "in my opinion", "I think", "from my experience", "it appears", and so on I would say that you 2 do deserve more respect. I don't think falsehoods or highly disputable conclusions should be stated as fact. I feel those who do not know the difference between their own opinions and facts should receive down votes. As iNow pointed out we have all received them.

@Alfred001, Age and current health level plays a role in the sort of exercises which would be most beneficial for health. Why are you dismissing weight and muscle from the conversation? A healthy body mass index would take both into consideration.

I think Clinton had a comprehensive plan for every major issue: Healthcare, Climate, Immigration, Trade, Criminal Justice, and etc. Considering it is a fact that Trump's campaign broke the law to win and members of his campaign have already been prosecuted for it I would argue that it wasn't strategy which failed Democrats much as it is the process itself which failed. When a party can keep what they cheated to win why wouldn't they continue to cheat? Can those playing by the rule ever have a good enough strategy if their opponents are allowed to cheat? Just look at the voter suppression going on in GA right now. What strategy would compensate for that? I guess democrats could sue but the courts determination would come down till after the election and won't impact the result. North Carolina's Voter ID law was struck down by a court in 2017 but it didn't change the result of the 14' or 16' election which it had been in place for Here. When one gets to keep what they cheat to win the system is broken. For the above stated reason among others Elections aren't always a good reflection of success in messaging. In the upcoming midterm election only 9 of the 35 Senate seats are held by Republicans. Meaning Democrats must protect double the amount of seats. The bar for success is a lot higher this year for Democrats. If both Republicans and Democrats protect all their Senate seats equally Republicans will continue to control the Senate and be able to claim victory despite not actually winning more individual races or getting more votes. That is just the landscape as it stands in 2018. Republicans can control the Senate receiving considerably less support. Democrats are heavily favored to take by the House. I think the focus of strategy, like the focus on rhetoric, turns the whole thing into sport. Winning becomes a substitute for being proved right. Kavanaugh was appointed to SCOTUS and Republicans in turn claimed he was proven innocent. Sport isn't what politics should be about. What happens in govt should matter more than who wins or loses. A good strategy should be determined by sound policy and not who wins and who loses. Sadly U.S. politics in 2018 has very little politics in it. After the failed Republican attempt to repeal the ACA the current state of healthcare has been left in wind, people seems to be ignoring the war in Yemen, ignoring the still ongoing refugee crisis, ignoring debt & inflation, and etc. Instead here in the U.S. we debate whether or not Trump or Democrats will win or lose. When Obama was POTUS I recall things like Drone use, Interest rates, healthcare premiums, student debt, how the accurately calculate unemployment, and etc were debated in detail. Now we debate the definition of boofing. It is a very sad state of affairs. I blame Republicans for it because they are the ones controlling every branch of govt and are also the ones who have been prosecuted for breaking the law. Obama was POTUS for 8yrs and far as I can tell the political environment was less divisive despite claims Obama was a secret Muslim from Kenya who hated White people and had a socialist agenda.

It is Rural areas which are conservative and it is Rural states with the greatest ideological divide . Wyoming for example went 67% Trump to just 21% Clinton.That was a 46 point win. Trump won West VA by 43 points. In total Trump won 9 states by at least 30 points. Clinton only won just 2 states by such margins despite win 3 million more votes. Texas is know as a Conservative State yet all of its major cities are Democrat. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and El Paso all have elected Democratic leadership. Trump won Texas by single digits thanks to the rural counties. During the first Civil War the South had a total united geographical location of value and an economy. Had the South succeeded in separating from the U.S. they would have had the ability to produce goods wells as transport them throughout the South and beyond. The Rural areas with the ideological divides today do not have that. They do not produce anything and have no means of distribution if they did. I do not see a second Civil War happening under the current political climate. If Conservatives could ecologically take over Canada then Conservative states on the Northern border like Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, and etc could attempt to secede to join Canada. However a conservative take over of Canada doesn't appear to be in motion.

Dumped on Trump for things he is doing on office and not purely for rhetoric he has said. You don't see a difference? People like Clinton and Holder aren't even in office. They are renegotiating trade deals, appointing judges, and etc. There stump speeches are meaningless. Complaining about someone like Holder is equivalent to someone like Newt Gringrich or some other former official who often does the media rounds. It isn't equivalent to the President.

As previously stated I would hope people would look at the policy and not focus on the bumper sticker slogans. End of the day Holder clearly said not to do anything inappropriate or illegal so I am fine with his speech. It is campaign season and politicians are holding rallies daily. I don't get caught up in the rhetoric. I am not in here criticizing the stump speeches of anyone. Trump is POTUS. His "antics" are legitimate policy matters.

Michelle Obama was asked if she think her motto, when they go low we go high, still stands. She didn't address Holder or Clinton. Rather she addressed her belief in her own statements as previously expressed. Here is the interview without editing or pundit commentary. Considering Eric Holder qualified his statement as a call for strength and not violence or anything inappropriate I am find with his motto as well. I have yet to see Clinton's full remarks in context. Which is why I pondered a ideological take over of Canada as being likely as a second Civil War.

Any speech can be better and any speech can be misconstrued. Trump is the only current political figure (elected or formerly elected recently) I know of here in the U.S. who purposefully says uncivil things in public. All the cases I am familiar with where a politician is accused of incivility are just exaggerations made to attack an individual rather than the policy. In my opinion if one is truly concerned with divisiveness in politics and wants more civility it is best to focus on the policies being proposed and ignore the language used by Politicians and the Media to sell and combat those policies. Rhetoric sells. Divisiveness sells. Detailed thoughtful policy isn't clickable, doesn't get ratings, and doesn't sell papers. Yet Policy is the job of a politician so that is what I think we should be he concerned with. On the rhetoric side there will always be outrage about something. There will all be equivalences made. I don't like Trump. My dislike of Trump isn't rooted in the way he insults people during campaign rallies, brags about himself incessantly, and etc. I dislike Trump's policies because I don't want families separated at the border, I don't want billionaires paying less taxes while our deficit soars, I don't want Climate Change disavowed, I don't want the U.S. relationship with Canada diminished, and etc, etc, etc, etc. I have honest differences with Trump that go beyond his public persona. I think a whole lot of people do. So when I ask you what it is that Democrats do which lead you to call them a "mob" and draw an equivalence between then and Republicans I am hoping for something substantive. Not the latest rhetoric pulled from daily headlines. I don't watch CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and so on. I do not watch any News on TV but local news (traffic, weather, and what's doing in my area). National prime time news is all garbage. It is they who stoke incivility and divisiveness for ratings IMO.

Trump gave an interview which airs this evening and during it described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat" in explaining whether or not Mattis maybe stepping down or being fired.

I don't have Cable TV. Rather I watch just watch Netflix and Amazon. The News I consume is all through reading online. So I miss a lot of the going popular political outrage and punditry associated with cable news. One of your links mentioned Eric Holder and I didn't understand the context because I don't follow cable news. Seems people have been taking a statement he made about kicking those who go low way out of context and attempting to claim Holder advocated violence. In the same speech where Holder made the kick'em comment he clarified saying "When I say we kick them, I don't mean we do anything inappropriate, we don't do anything illegal, but we have to be tough and we have to fight, and we have to fight for the very things that John Lewis, Martin Luther King, Whitney Young – you know, all those folks gave to us.” It seems you might be allowing dishonest media pundits to influence your perception a bit. Just as I reference civil rights leaders in my early response so too did Eric Holder in his remarks. I recommend you find a full version of the speech and watch it for yourself. I didn't link one because all the ones I found included various bit of commentary. It would be best for you to read or see the comments in full for yourself. Perhaps then you will give the belief you have about Democratic mobs some more thought.

This thread asks about partisan in relationship to SCOTUS and I think we all have own understanding of what partisanship is however under the current administration the definition of partisanship may be changing. I think must of us have understood partisanship in the U.S. to mean Democrat vs Republican. Those lines have become more blurred. Solid lifelong Republicans like Flakes, Corker, McCain, Priebus, and etc have criticized at various points as not authentically Republican enough for not kowtowing to Trump. Now in an attempt to get out in front of the the controversy surrounding dissatisfaction in his Trump is claiming his Sec. of State James (Mad Dog) Mattis is"sort of a Democrat". Separately there is much speculation that Trump's U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley had ideological differences with Trump in that she is too moderate and that played role in her resignation. Ironically Mattis, Priebus, and Haley were about some of the most partisan faces in the Republican Party at the time they were offered jobs with Trump. S So what is partisanship under Trump? Does being anything less than a harden Trump supporter makes one "sort of a Democrat" and if so doesn't that make bipartisanship during the Trump-era is impossible?

@CharonY, thank for the response. Would you happen to know which organizations are doing some of the research on this issue? Right, different foods can increase or decrease certain natural levels of hormones. I remember back in 2013 I took a soy based post workout supplement for a couple months. My wife noticed that I became considerable me polite and agreeable. No night we were watch a movie, a crappy one I had seen parts of already,and during a dramatic moment in the movie I found myself tearing up. I had known that Soy products increased estrogen levels but hadn't given it any serious thought till then. Estrogen levels in a known factor though. In this thread I am trying to understand unknowns. I go to the grocery store and more and more items advertise themselves as being probiotic. I would imagine that certain type of bacteria and yeast would be better suited for specific diets but I really don't know. It doesn't help that so many foods falsely advertise themselves. One has to read an ingredients list carefully to understand what they are getting regardless of what the packaging says.

Mike Tyson was an excellent counter puncher. Many of his knockout came as he slipped an opponents jab or overhand power 2 shot. Guys were often moving into the shot and unprotected. A punch you don't see coming has a multiplied effect. Unfortunately it is also why, one of the reason anyway, that later in Tyson's career opponents were able to withstand his power. Once Tyson lost his timing and could no longer land the perfectly placed counters he became beatable. For that reason I say Tyson was not the hardest puncher. His power was a result of style and execution rather than brute force alone. George Foreman on the other hand remained an elite KO puncher his whole career. Even as a 45yr, ancient by pro athlete standards, Foreman knockout Micheal Moore to recapture the Heavyweight title. Foreman power was such that it didn't require great timing, speed, or reflexes. Even when opponents successfully blocked a Foreman shot with a glove they would often still be shaken by the force of the blow. Plus the level of opponent Foreman knockout was greater. Foreman stopped Hall of Fame opponents like Joe Frazier and Ken Norton. In all fairness to Tyson by the time the Holyfield and Lewis fights came along he was well beyond his prime and only fighting for the money. It is well known that wasn't even training seriously anymore when those fights happened. The media workouts Tyson put on were basically the only workouts he had. Prime vs Prime Holyfield still might have edged Tyson out but I think Tyson would have crushed Lewis inside of a couple round. Lewis had a glass chin and was stopped by lesser competition a couple different times. Holyfield was awesome. Styles make fights though and I don't think prime Holyfield could have beaten prime versions of Ali or Holmes. Their movement and work from behind the jab would have been to much. Plus both men were bigger than Holyfield and would have had distance advantages over him. I agree with you about Foreman and believe prime Foreman would have beaten prime Holyfield too. That isn't taking anything away from Holyfield though. He is the greater fight of the past 30; as you said.

As mentioned in the OP the literature I have seen focuses on children. As a parent is this something you have read about or have any personal anecdotal experience with?

Recently I was reading about the Carnivore Diet and the various claims people make about it curing depression, ADD, and etc. I do not advocate the Carnivore Diet nor am I on, have ever been on, or am even considering going on the Carnivore Diet. My question is to what extend does our diet, any healthy diet, impact our mind. Obviously inadequate nutrition can impairs brain function but assuming one is adequately nourished with a healthy combination of fat, protein, sugar, salt, vitamins, minerals, and so on how much impact does the source of nutrition have on behavior, personality, and mood? I have found some literature on the subject relating to children but not adults.

Thanks to global warming Canada should become a significant point of distribution in the near future. The Northwest passage is open long and larger seemingly every year. The Hudson Bay will potentially have some of the largest ports of in the world. Canada doesn't need to be taken over by the U.S.. Canada can make more money as a trade liaison between the U.S. and place like Russian & China. Depending on how Canada chooses to manage their immigration policies I think Canada's future in bright. More land and coast is becoming accessible which means more access to resources.

I am not advocating that anyone invade Canada. Rather I am just thinking through the logistics of a second civil war. During the civil war the South was united and they had their own agricultural based economy and access to critical infrastructure. Today the most partisan states are not in control of any specific type of economy or critical infrastructure. If those most partisan states could leave the Union they'd quickly become failed States. So a more likely scenario in my opinion (neither scenario being particularly likely) would be for a takeover of Canada rather than an attempt a physical civil war.

What Democrats are calling for violence? I am asking you for specifics and you link a 17 second video of Booker, come on. I imagine that finding the full video of Booker's speech rather than the 17 seconds of it would answer the questions you are directing at me. Moreover Booker do not call for violence anywhere in that 17 seconds. Go to Capital hit and "get in congress peoples faces" is not a call for violence. It is a call to be heard. You seem to be placing a greater emphasis on style than you are substance. I am plainly asking you what the Democratic mob is advocating for which you think is equivalently vitriolic and divisive as what Right is advocating for and thus far all I got it Clinton nonsense and a misrepresentation a Cory Booker line.

What specific thinks are Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton (both hold no office) calling on people to do specially? Both of your links were just punditry criticizing sentences from much larger statements. What specifically do you feel the Democratic "mob" is advocating for? It seems you are latching on to a single word, incivility, and letting imagination will fill in the blanks. Perhaps because you are Canadian your understanding of the context of what Holder and Clinton said differently than I do. Here in the U.S. it was incivility, civil disobedience, protest, defiance of the status quo, and/or etc has been used to fight against many terrible things in society. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. Rosa Parks literally was breaking the law when she refused to give her seat up on the bus. Likewise countless U.S. Citizens broke the law when they burden their draft cards or like Muhammad Ali committed felonies by refusing to step forward for the draft when his name was called. Today In an act of defiance against Marijuana laws people smoke marijuana in public all over the U.S. on April 20th. Whether is it taking a knee during the national anthem or whatever there is a long tradition of U.S. citizens rejecting the status quo when it is believed to be unjust. Most of it has been for the greater good in my opinion. What are Holder and Clinton asking people to specifically do that you object to? As it applies to a 2nd Civil War or the succession of any portion of the country please example what it is you think the Democratic mob might do which would cause such to occur.

Clinton is not running for office or in office. So yes, I am serious. *Edit, you are claiming equivalent vitriolic rhetoric coming from the Democratic "mob". Surely you have more examples than the standard anti-Clinton line.

You mentioned Hillary Clinton and then ask where can a moderate go to vote. Are you under the impression Hillary Clinton is on the ballot someplace this election?

Can I get some examples of the extreme rhetoric?

Yes, you keep stating that. I have asked repeatedly what exactly Democrats are doing you object to but have yet to receive an answer. Currently it is Republicans in control of all 3 branches of the U.S. govt.. In practice what specific policies of the Democratic "mob" do you find objectionable? It is the U.S. Republican President who is insulting your Prime Minister and mis-characterizing your country as hostile towards the U.S. rather than the the historical ally Canada has been.

Whether or not a Supreme Court Justice is impeached isn't the determining factor for whether or not they lied. No SCOTUS justice in history has ever been successfully impeached.

In pondering the likelihood of a second U.S. Civil War the thought accorded to me that a Canadian coup might be the easier solution for U.S. Conservatives looking for their our country. At just 10% the population of the U.S. there would be far less people to sway via propaganda. There is just 36 million people in Canada. By contrast Trump received 63 million votes. U.S. Conservatives have the money and the numbers to possibly take over Canada ideologically. As is stands most Canadians live within a couple hundred km of the U.S. border and the majority of U.S. citizens living near the Canadian border are among the most politically extreme in the nation. Coeur d'Alene Idaho is known for its White Nationalists and Coeur d'Alene is just 195km from the Canadian border. If things ever got to the point here in the U.S. where Second Civil War was brewing I suspect a hostile take over of Canada might be the easier solution. What are your thoughts?