|
Mr. Peepers posted:Milk posts aren't wholly bad, just skim through the pages and they'll be pasteurize in no time. Boo this man
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Mr. Peepers posted:Milk posts aren't wholly bad, just skim through the pages and they'll be pasteurize in no time. Whey did you do this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Thread got Gouda again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Mr. Peepers posted:Milk posts aren't wholly bad, just skim through the pages and they'll be pasteurize in no time. I only read about 2% of them anyway. Just look for those with replies and you'll see the cream rise to the top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Milk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
The funny milk and food joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
This is getting whey out of control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
Not to interrupt Malkchat, but is there anything to SuperTuesday 2: 2sday being Trump's "waterloo", or is it all just more GOP desperation via political columnists?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
There's really no need to get sour about it. Half and half politics and food chat is really pretty good for these threads. Though personally I wouldn't mind seeing more heavy topics discussed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:The funny milk and food joke. Stop being so intolerant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
shut the gently caress up. milk pun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
re: peanuts from a while back Heard a report on NPR that exposing infants to peanuts actually reduces the incidence of peanut allergies by 80%. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35727244 Note: Obviously this is different from rubbing bacteria all over your children, since it's a food allergy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:Not to interrupt Malkchat, but is there anything to SuperTuesday 2: 2sday being Trump's "waterloo", or is it all just more GOP desperation via political columnists? More GOP desperation. The map is at this point stacked against the not-trumps and the hopes of convention shenanigans gets smaller with each state that falls to Trump. They want to be able to beat him in Ohio and Florida but he's going to win FL and is probably leading in OH too. He's been telling the press that he can seal the nomination if he wins those states to knock out Rufio and Kasich, which means he's been telling his spite-filled slit trench of a support base that they can get another poke in at the " establishment."
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:re: peanuts from a while back Peanut allergy: immune system being dumb. Food poisoning: immune system working as intended expelling all the poo poo you fed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Koirhor posted:What I have learned today is 100 years from now tobacco will be hailed to cure all sorta of illness.   Besides apparent death, (!) shotgunning giant pipe hits of tobacco into a patients rear end using a bellows was a treatment for various digestive complaints as well as drowsiness. moller fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
People just keep churning out milk puns. Its udderly distasteful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
KirbyKhan posted:People just keep churning out milk puns. Its udderly distasteful. No you're too late for dairy jokes we've moved on to literally blowing smoke up asses
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
But what about goat milk? Can that be raw?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Broken Box posted:No you're too late for dairy jokes we've moved on to literally blowing smoke up asses Smokes for pansies. Real party goers use HF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
Koirhor posted:What I have learned today is 100 years from now tobacco will be hailed to cure all sorta of illness. Tobacco was already being claimed as a cure-all about half a century ago, but you're right that we're due for it to be in vogue again as a panacea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
moller posted:l complaints as well as drowsiness. If that won't wake you up I dunno what will
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I'm not saying this to argue, because, like most Bernie supporters in here I think, I'd be perfectly fine with Hillary in the White House too, but isn't she even less likely to bring about nationalized health care? Not that anyone would expect her to make it a plank, since, contrary to the belief of 2008 voters, presidents are not actually endowed with magic wands upon inauguration, but it's interesting to me how we prioritize in our hearts vs. how we prioritize in the voting booth. Being a leftist in America always means compromising on a presidential candidate, but do you think Hillary's healthcare plan is better or more achievable, or is it just that she's strong enough on other issues that you'll take the loss on healthcare? I'm falling to far behind to keep this conversation going .. so this will probably be my last post for awhile. And I do see this as a conversation, not an argument. I think Hillary's is both better and more achievable. Although the latter strongly influences the former for me. She is taking a two pronged approach. At the state level she is putting the screws on folks who refused the Medicaid expansion. Her campaign is very focused on local messaging in each state and if you just look at the national coverage you miss the regional messaging but her local adds and speeches in states that refused Medicaid expansion call out the governor's who did so. When Medicaid was passed originally it took 17 years before all the states accepted it. People grand stood and pitched fits but denying health care to your citizens that everyone else was getting was a losing strategy electorally. Expansion is thus feasible and would bring tangible benefits to millions of Americans. Pushing it also might help a lot in down ticket races in GOP held states. Side note: Bel Edwards accepted Medicaid expansion in Louisiana this January =). 19 states to go. ~3.5 million expansion eligible people between them. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/john_bel_edwards_medicaid.html At the federal level she is pushing improvements to the ACA and a public option. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/ A lot of that is unlikely to pass but I really like the plan to do public service announcements and outreach to get an estimated 16 million signed up who don't appear to realize that they are now Medicaid eligible due to the ACA. To bad GOP controlled congress, these laws are already passed! Muahahaha! It's just helping people to claim their benefits. That said, if you know someone for whom ACA subsidies are not enough, ask them if they've checked to see if they are Medicaid eligible under the ACA. It's not full NHS now. But coming up with a realistic path to getting almost 20 million people Medicaid benefits isn't nothing. There are only about 33 million uninsured left so that would be tremendous progress. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/33-million-americans-still-dont-have-health-insurance/
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
KirbyKhan posted:People just keep churning out milk puns. Its udderly distasteful. C'mon you can do butter than this
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Smokes for pansies. Real party goers use HF. what the literal poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:what the literal poo poo Decalcified poo poo! Really this article has seen the rounds in the various safety, medical, and science threads. Exactly what it sounds like. HF is the acid that loves calcium so much it'll pretty much suck it right out of the bone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Fluoridated butthole, so what *blood diarrhea*
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Smokes for pansies. Real party goers use HF.  How the everloving gently caress does a person have access to HF and not know how horribly dangerous it is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:
cocaine is a helluva drug
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:re: peanuts from a while back Still, rub bacteria all over your children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
I'm a buck-toothed Englishman so I apologise for not knowing this, but could someone explain how your Senate works? I get that the House of Representatives is like our House of Commons, with candidates standing for their party across the 400-ish constituencies grouped by population, and when we say the Republicans control the House that means they have a majority of the seats. But I thought the Senate always had 100 senators, one from each party for each state, so what does it mean for the Senate to be "Republican-controlled"? Pretty much my entire understanding of the US political system comes from House of Cards. It's still pretty weird to me that you can have the Democrat party running the country but be constantly hosed by the Republican-controlled House, although in retrospect I now wish we had something like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
The 2 senators from each state don't have to be from different parties (they usually are both from the same).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Still, rub bacteria all over your children. Raw milk is dumb, but this is not too far from the mark- http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/01/464905786/researchers-test-microbe-wipe-to-promote-babies-health-after-c-sections
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Boing posted:I'm a buck-toothed Englishman so I apologise for not knowing this, but could someone explain how your Senate works? I get that the House of Representatives is like our House of Commons, with candidates standing for their party across the 400-ish constituencies grouped by population, and when we say the Republicans control the House that means they have a majority of the seats. But I thought the Senate always had 100 senators, one from each party for each state, so what does it mean for the Senate to be "Republican-controlled"? It's not one from each party, they're elected at large by each state so states with large proportions of rurals will elect two republican senators while states with more people living in civilized areas tend to elect two Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Still, rub bacteria all over your children. They'll find bacteria
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Oh, I don't know where I got that idea. It made sense in my head. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
The Vice President would probably be considerably busier breaking up ties if that were the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Boing posted:I'm a buck-toothed Englishman so I apologise for not knowing this, but could someone explain how your Senate works? I get that the House of Representatives is like our House of Commons, with candidates standing for their party across the 400-ish constituencies grouped by population, and when we say the Republicans control the House that means they have a majority of the seats. But I thought the Senate always had 100 senators, one from each party for each state, so what does it mean for the Senate to be "Republican-controlled"? House races are a district level race every 2 years whereas senate races are state level races every 6 years (offsetting). As such, you can, and often do, get both senators from the same party. Most of the time when there's a split, it's because of demographic changes between the election of the senators.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Boing posted:Oh, I don't know where I got that idea. It made sense in my head. Thanks! Because the idea that republicans control the senate while representing a bunch of empty land is completely insane. But true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Still, rub bacteria all over your children. Haha. Rub? They'll discover bacteria all on their own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 14:44
|
|