If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Alan,
Losing 5kg is in one month is such an easy task.. You should chose some interesting exercise like running swimming etc. And try to eat more veges and fruits.. personal trainer orange county Last edited by Hadwin : April 16th, 2011 at 10:16 AM. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month
On Feb 22, 9:32*pm, Billy wrote:
In article , *"FOB" wrote: You don't NEED any carbs. * Technically, this is true, but since I don't no carb, I would like somebody like Doug to sign off on this first. IIRC there is a proviso. That's special too. Ask the guy who misquotes Atkins, makes crap up, comes to conclusions based on his "data tabulated from newgroups" to sign off and tell people what to do. I have a better suggestion. Get Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution and follow the advice he gave, a real doctor with a real plan that works. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month
In article
, " wrote: On Feb 22, 9:32*pm, Billy wrote: In article , *"FOB" wrote: You don't NEED any carbs. * Technically, this is true, but since I don't no carb, I would like somebody like Doug to sign off on this first. IIRC there is a proviso. That's special too. Ask the guy who misquotes Atkins, makes crap up, comes to conclusions based on his "data tabulated from newgroups" to sign off and tell people what to do. I have a better suggestion. Get Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution and follow the advice he gave, a real doctor with a real plan that works. From "Uh oh...." to Dr. Atkins evangelizer in 3 days. Is that some kind of record? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575 Better check it out quickly before Susan's priceless brilliance is scrubbed from the net. Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass. Where were you Susan, and Pamela? Then Roger Zoul Posts,"High-fat diet (HFD) and inflammation are key contributors to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes (T2D)." http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/vao...l/ni.2022.html http://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2011/april/ting http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575 which elicits the question from Omelet, "Does this mean that the Atkins Fat Fast can kill you even tho' it's the fastest way to dump weight and force the body to burn fat as fuel? " Doug responds to the question, and then Susan criticizes Doug's response, which is followed by defensive bickering, during which no practical information is offered. You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions, Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm? Thanks a lot. (Yes, sarcasm) -- - Billy Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month
Billy wrote:
Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass. It's probably a better idea to discuss what consistutes realistic loss rates than to try to help someone lose at a faster rate than usually experienced by those having 100+ pounds to go. Water loss happens in the first month on various types of diets especially low carb. That results in more pounds lost in the first month, or first two weeks, than in other months. Does the OP even mean water loss, though? Some folks want water loss for a wedding or a wrestling match or whatever and they don't really expect to keep it off except for that day. Is there any sign the OP was in that situation? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month
On Apr 18, 1:25*pm, Billy wrote:
In article , " wrote: On Feb 22, 9:32*pm, Billy wrote: In article , *"FOB" wrote: You don't NEED any carbs. * Technically, this is true, but since I don't no carb, I would like somebody like Doug to sign off on this first. IIRC there is a proviso.. That's special too. *Ask the guy who misquotes Atkins, makes crap up, comes to conclusions based on his "data tabulated from newgroups" to sign off and tell people what to do. I have a better suggestion. * Get Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution and follow the advice he gave, a real doctor with a real plan that works. From "Uh oh...." to Dr. Atkins evangelizer in 3 days. Is that some kind of record? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575 Better check it out quickly before Susan's priceless brilliance is scrubbed from the net. Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass. Where were you Susan, and Pamela? Is it now necessary for each of us to respond to every post? I haven't seen Roger Zoul in here for maybe a year, but he' very credible and helpful. Then Roger Zoul Posts,"High-fat diet (HFD) and inflammation are key contributors to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes (T2D)."http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/vao...l/ni.2022.htmlhttp://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2011/april/ting http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575 which elicits the question from Omelet, "Does this mean that the Atkins Fat Fast can kill you even tho' it's the fastest way to dump weight and force the body to burn fat as fuel? " Doug responds to the question, and then Susan criticizes Doug's response, which is followed by defensive bickering, during which no practical information is offered. Let's review, OK? Roger made that post and it draws a link between saturated fat and diabetes. Omelet comes along and asks if that means an Atkins fat fast can kill you. In response to that, Doug makes the claim that " ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with diabetes", and tries to attribute it to Atkins. If true, that would mean that Atkins didn't think his diet, which puts one in ketosis, was safe for diabetics. It's contrary to everything I know about Atkins and like Susan I was suspicious,. To review further, first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic. Second, I have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to back what Doug claimed up. Third, Doug, as many of us here know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a single reference to support it. You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions, Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm? Actually, it's Doug who suggested the rest of us should go look up what he attributed to Atkins, instead of him simply providing the reference. I merely pointed out that like Susan, my BS detector is going off based on prior experiences with Doug. Thanks a lot. (Yes, sarcasm) -- - Billy Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like Doug so much. It too is an outright lie. Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget in graphical terms even you may be able to understand: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/ It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil and the Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. That is an order of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to be totally clueless about that with you spout. And if you want to count Social Security, that is another $818bil. Anything else I can help you with? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month
In article
, " wrote: On Apr 18, 1:25*pm, Billy wrote: In article , " wrote: On Feb 22, 9:32*pm, Billy wrote: In article , *"FOB" wrote: You don't NEED any carbs. * Technically, this is true, but since I don't no carb, I would like somebody like Doug to sign off on this first. IIRC there is a proviso. That's special too. *Ask the guy who misquotes Atkins, makes crap up, comes to conclusions based on his "data tabulated from newgroups" to sign off and tell people what to do. I have a better suggestion. * Get Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution and follow the advice he gave, a real doctor with a real plan that works. From "Uh oh...." to Dr. Atkins evangelizer in 3 days. Is that some kind of record? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575 Better check it out quickly before Susan's priceless brilliance is scrubbed from the net. Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass. Where were you Susan, and Pamela? Is it now necessary for each of us to respond to every post? I haven't seen Roger Zoul in here for maybe a year, Then you say below, "Let's review, OK? Roger made that post . . ." To err is human, to forgive is divine ;O) but he' very credible and helpful. Then Roger Zoul Posts,"High-fat diet (HFD) and inflammation are key contributors to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes (T2D)."http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/vao...l/ni.2022.htmlhttp://news.unch ealthcare.org/news/2011/april/ting http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575 which elicits the question from Omelet, "Does this mean that the Atkins Fat Fast can kill you even tho' it's the fastest way to dump weight and force the body to burn fat as fuel? " Doug responds to the question, and then Susan criticizes Doug's response, which is followed by defensive bickering, during which no practical information is offered. Let's review, OK? Roger made that post and it draws a link between saturated fat and diabetes. Omelet comes along and asks if that means an Atkins fat fast can kill you. In response to that, Doug makes the claim that " ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with diabetes", and tries to attribute it to Atkins. If true, that would mean that Atkins didn't think his diet, which puts one in ketosis, was safe for diabetics. It's contrary to everything I know about Atkins and like Susan I was suspicious,. What Doug said was, "Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with diabetes.", and I see no explicit reference to Atkins. Perhaps Induction, and Fat Fast are the signposts indicating Atkins, but your "and tries to attribute it to Atkins", seems to be stretching a point. To review further, first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic. So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it? Om said that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we aren't apprised of. Second, I have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to back what Doug claimed up. Lack of evidence isn't proof. Third, Doug, as many of us here know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a single reference to support it. Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now? You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions, Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm? Actually, it's Doug who suggested the rest of us should go look up what he attributed to Atkins, instead of him simply providing the reference. Again, if you go to http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t hread/8157a0986c6fd748/b7c13e4c700f7b78?show_docid=b7c13e4c700f7b78 quickly, you'll see that Doug said "Dr Atkins was more conservative on the topic than you are." I merely pointed out that like Susan, my BS detector is going off No reference, no cite, no sense. Why don't you just call it divine revelation? based on prior experiences with Doug. Thanks a lot. (Yes, sarcasm) -- - Billy Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like Doug so much. It too is an outright lie. Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of bile. Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget in graphical terms even you may be able to understand: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/ It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion but not including Fatherland Security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png and the Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. That is an order of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to be totally clueless about that with you spout. And if you want to count Social Security, that is another $818bil. Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Human_Services column right-hand side and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from withholdings on your wages. Anything else I can help you with? Yes. Go play in the traffic. -- - Billy Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote: Billy wrote: Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass. It's probably a better idea to discuss what consistutes realistic loss rates than to try to help someone lose at a faster rate than usually experienced by those having 100+ pounds to go. Water loss happens in the first month on various types of diets especially low carb. That results in more pounds lost in the first month, or first two weeks, than in other months. Does the OP even mean water loss, though? Some folks want water loss for a wedding or a wrestling match or whatever and they don't really expect to keep it off except for that day. Is there any sign the OP was in that situation? Oh, come on, Doug, you know that totally flies in the face of clinical research. Doug, why do you hate clinical research? ;O)) --- Anyway all we got was: Helooo friends !!!! This is ALan Smith I am Working as a content writer I am bit bulky so loose the weight I have joined the Gym. Still I have not concentrated on my diet so please suggest me Low Carbohydrate Diets..... Smith ALan -- The subject line was "I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month", and according to Google he was a first time poster. I doubt we'll ever see him again. -- - Billy Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month
On Apr 18, 5:49*pm, Billy wrote:
To review further, first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic. So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it? That;s right and it makes Doug's reply even stranger. Om said that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we aren't apprised of .. Second, I have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to back what Doug claimed up. * Lack of evidence isn't proof. You can't be real. You've been here a fraction of the time that Susan or I have. But you still have been here long enough to know that Doug attributes things to Atkins and when challenged, never backs them up. This is what he said this time: "Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with diabetes." "It was Doctor Atkin's stance. He wanted any low carbing diabetic to work closely with a doctor informed on the topic of lowcarb. Anyone can feel free to look it up. Look for diabetes in the index of any edition of his book. " As I stated, I have a copy of Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002 and looked in the index and found nothing close to the above. Now Billy, I don't know how it works where you come from. But in my world it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the other way around. Third, Doug, as many of us here know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a single reference to support it. Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now? If you paid attention you'd know the history here. Susan has seen it, I have seen it. Funny how you demand citations and examples from us, but whatever crap Doug spews goes unchallenged. You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions, Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm? Actually, it's Doug who suggested the rest of us should go look up what he attributed to Atkins, instead of him simply providing the reference. * Again, if you go to http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t hread/8157a0986c6fd748/b7c13e4c700f7b78?show_docid=b7c13e4c700f7b78 quickly, you'll see that Doug said "Dr Atkins was more conservative on the topic than you are." I don;t even know what you're talking about here. I merely pointed out that like Susan, my BS detector is going off No reference, no cite, no sense. Why don't you just call it divine revelation? That's right, DOUG has no cite, no reference. Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like Doug so much. *It too is an outright lie. Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of bile. Quite the contrary, it's based on fact. Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget in graphical terms even you may be able to understand: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/ It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion *but not including Fatherland Security * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png and the Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. *That is an order of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to be totally clueless about that with you spout. * *And if you want to count Social Security, that is another $818bil. Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion column right-hand side The only problem with that Wikipedia cite, where anyone can edit anythiing, is that it conveniently leaves out all Medicare and Medicaid payments which are the vast MAJORITY of spending on Health and Human Services. This is another new trick, along the lines of "number of jobs saved", that is being used to try to fool people who don't know any better. In your case, it obviously worked. I gave you a link to MSNBC that shows it all in pretty block diagrams. And the Health and Human services block sure ain't your ridiculous 78bil. It's closer to $1tril, significantly larger than the defense budget. Don't believe MSNBC? Here's the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...get/index.html Look at the Health and Human Services block compared to defense. Still want to lie that it's only 78bil? and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from withholdings on your wages. Wrong, while the money coming in to pay for it is from the social security withholdings, it's part of the $3.7 trillion federal budget. Unless you think MSNBC, NY Times, CBO, etc are lying. Social security is right there as part of the $3.7tril budget spending. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month
In article
, " wrote: On Apr 18, 5:49*pm, Billy wrote: To review further, first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic. So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it? That;s right and it makes Doug's reply even stranger. Om said that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we aren't apprised of . Second, I have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to back what Doug claimed up. * Lack of evidence isn't proof. You can't be real. You've been here a fraction of the time that Susan or I have. Seniority makes you right?? But you still have been here long enough to know that Doug attributes things to Atkins and when challenged, never backs them up. What are you talking about? Nearly nobody posts here. In the couple of years I've watched this site I've never noticed anyone but Susan who was rude to the readers and Doug. There are times when clever people are wrong, but when you ask a question, you are so buried in B.S. that you can't see the sky. That's how I feel. This is what he said this time: "Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with diabetes." "It was Doctor Atkin's stance. He wanted any low carbing diabetic to work closely with a doctor informed on the topic of lowcarb. Anyone can feel free to look it up. Look for diabetes in the index of any edition of his book. " As I stated, I have a copy of Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002 and looked in the index and found nothing close to the above. How about diabetes 273-287, Atkins Nutritional Approach to 228-229, dangers associated with, 277, or just diet and 274, 275, 277-278. Now Billy, You can call me, Mister Rose. I don't know how it works where you come from. But in my world it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the other way around. Except you took exception with what was said. You didn't say it doesn't go like that. It goes like this. You haven't shown reason to to believe you, except for Susan going nuttso over Doug. Shouldn't the person making the claim to back it up? Third, Doug, as many of us here know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a single reference to support it. Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now? If you paid attention you'd know the history here. Susan has seen it, I have seen it. Funny how you demand citations and examples from us, but whatever crap Doug spews goes unchallenged. You mean stuff like, "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health" by Gary Taubes http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...nce/dp/1400033 462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271102831&sr=1-1 (Available at better libraries near you.) REDUCING DIETS 319 Though glucose is a primary fuel for the brain, it is not, however the only fuel, and dietary carbohydrates are not the only source of that glucose. If the diet includes less than 130 grams of carbohydrates, the liver increases its synthesis of molecules called ketone bodies, and these supply the necessary fuel for the brain and central nervous system. If the diet includes no carbohydrates at all, ketone bodies supply three-quarters of the energy to the brain. The rest comes from glucose synthesized from the amino acids in protein, either from the diet or from the breakdown of muscle, and from a compound called glycerol that is released when glycerides in the fat tissue are broken down into their component fatty acids. In these cases, the body is technically in a state called ketosis, and the diet is often referred to as a ketogenic diet. Whether the diet is ketogenic or anti-ketogenicÐrepresenting a difference of a few tens of grams of carbohydrates each dayÐmight influence the response to the diet, complicating the question of whether carbohydrates are responsible for some effect or whether there is another explanation. (Ketosis is often incorrectly described by nutritionists as "pathological." This confuses ketosis with the ketoacidosis of uncontrolled diabetes. The former is a normal condition; the latter is not. The ketone-body level in diabetic ketoacidosis typically exceeds 200 mg/dl, compared with the 5 mg/dl ketone levels that are typically experienced after an overnight fastÐtwelve hours after dinner and before eating breakfastÐand the 5-20 mg/dl ketone levels of a severly carbohydrate-restricted diet with only 5-10 percent carbohydrates.) -- Ketosis is often incorrectly described by nutritionists as "pathological." This confuses ketosis with the ketoacidosis of uncontrolled diabetes. The former is a normal condition; the latter is not. - You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions, Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm? Actually, it's Doug who suggested the rest of us should go look up what he attributed to Atkins, instead of him simply providing the reference. * Again, if you go to http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t hread/8157a0986c6fd748/b7c13e4c700f7b78?show_docid=b7c13e4c700f7b78 quickly, you'll see that Doug said "Dr Atkins was more conservative on the topic than you are." I don;t even know what you're talking about here. That's where you came in ;O) I merely pointed out that like Susan, my BS detector is going off No reference, no cite, no sense. Why don't you just call it divine revelation? That's right, DOUG has no cite, no reference. Om didn't ask him for one, but again, you are the one who said he is wrong. Where's your proof? Shouldn't the person making the claim back it up? Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like Doug so much. *It too is an outright lie. Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of bile. Quite the contrary, it's based on fact. Not in evidence. Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget in graphical terms even you may be able to understand: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/ It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion *but not including Fatherland Security * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png and the Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. *That is an order of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to be totally clueless about that with you spout. * *And if you want to count Social Security, that is another $818bil. Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion column right-hand side The only problem with that Wikipedia cite, where anyone can edit anythiing, is that it conveniently leaves out all Medicare and Medicaid payments which are the vast MAJORITY of spending on Health and Human Services. This is another new trick, along the lines of "number of jobs saved", that is being used to try to fool people who don't know any better. In your case, it obviously worked. Anyone, at anytime can look at the site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png Are you so lame as to suggest that I'm so desperate to look smart in front of an idiot like you, that I would doctor a web site? Are you stark raving insane? I gave you a link to MSNBC that shows it all in pretty block diagrams. And the Health and Human services block sure ain't your ridiculous 78bil. It's closer to $1tril, significantly larger than the defense budget. Don't believe MSNBC? Here's the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...get/index.html Look at the Health and Human Services block compared to defense. Still want to lie that it's only 78bil? and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from withholdings on your wages. Wrong, while the money coming in to pay for it is from the social security withholdings, it's part of the $3.7 trillion federal budget. Unless you think MSNBC, NY Times, CBO, etc are lying. Social security is right there as part of the $3.7tril budget spending. Because the retirement money went into the general fund. I don't have time to help you read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States We are 5% of the worlds population. We don't need to spend half of the worlds military budget while supporting over a 1000 bases around the world. The biggest threat that we have to our democracy is here in America. The country is dying. We need jobs, and we need to get the blood sucking leaches off of us. Taxes Citizen$ --- Government --- Corporations --- Top 1% -- Where the money went America is not broke. - MICHAEL MOORE http://theuptake.org/2011/03/05/mich...wisconsin-is-b roke/ "Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away "their" wealth." - Lucy Parsons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Parsons -- - Billy Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month
On Apr 19, 2:21*am, Billy wrote:
In article , " wrote: On Apr 18, 5:49*pm, Billy wrote: To review further, first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic. So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it? That;s right and it makes Doug's reply even stranger. Om said that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we aren't apprised of . Second, I have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to back what Doug claimed up. * Lack of evidence isn't proof. You can't be real. *You've been here a fraction of the time that Susan or I have. * Seniority makes you right?? You really do have a comprehension problem. I never said or implied that. What I said was that while Susan and I have been here a lot longer, you've been here long enough to see Doug caught spinning crap with nothing to back it up. But you still have been here long enough to know that Doug attributes things to Atkins and when challenged, never backs them up. What are you talking about? Nearly nobody posts here. In the couple of years I've watched this site I've never noticed anyone but Susan who was rude to the readers and Doug. I guess a lot gets by you. There are times when clever people are wrong, Yes there are. But honest ones then admit it. Honest ones provide references when challenged and don't tell everyone else to go look up what Atkins said. but when you ask a question, you are so buried in B.S. that you can't see the sky. That's how I feel. That must be because you're paying too much attention to Doug. This is what he said this time: *"Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with diabetes." "It was Doctor Atkin's stance. *He wanted any low carbing diabetic to work closely with a doctor informed on the topic of lowcarb. *Anyone can feel free to look it up. *Look for diabetes in the index of any edition of his book. " As I stated, I have a copy of Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002 and looked in the index and found nothing close to the above. * How about diabetes 273-287, Atkins Nutritional Approach to 228-229, dangers associated with, 277, or just diet and 274, 275, 277-278. Now, like Doug, instead of addressing the specific issue, you are trying to cover up or squirm away. I did not say DIABETES was not in the index or that Atkins did not warn about the dangers of DIABETES. Nor did Susan. What we challenged was Doug's assertion that Atkins said unsupervised ketosis was counterindicated for anyone with diabetes and that he wanted diabetics to be monitored by their doctor while doing Atkins. Show us where THAT is contained Atkins books. And BTW, it would be a good idea to include the edition, because I have the 2002 soft edition of DANDR and while the topics you cite are in the index, the page numbers do not correspond. I've looked through the pages in my addition that you reference and what Doug claimed is NOT there. And when you find it, fair use allows some short excerpts, so just post where Atkins said it. Now Billy, You can call me, Mister Rose. I don't know how it works where you come from. *But in my world it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the other way around. Except you took exception with what was said. You didn't say it doesn't go like that. It goes like this. You haven't shown reason to to believe you, except for Susan going nuttso over Doug. Shouldn't the person making the claim to back it up? You really aren't very well grounded in logic, are you? Let's say someone claimed that Jack LaLane said excercise is dangerous for people with diabetes. According to you, anyone that knows about LaLane and has doubts that he said it, is the one that has to prove that he did not say it? Did you ever hear about the difficulty of proving a negative? Third, Doug, as many of us here know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a single reference to support it. Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now? If you paid attention you'd know the history here. *Susan has seen it, I have seen it. * Funny how you demand citations and examples from us, but whatever crap Doug spews goes unchallenged. Long Taubes quote excerpted, because that is what Taubes said, not what Doug says. But it does show that you apparently understand that fair use allows for some brief excerpts. We'd think by now, if Atkins really said what Doug claimed, we'd have that posted here which would have ended the discussion long ago. That's right, DOUG has no cite, no reference. Om didn't ask him for one, but again, you are the one who said he is wrong. Where's your proof? Shouldn't the person making the claim back it up? You really need to get grounded in logic and critical thinking. Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like Doug so much. *It too is an outright lie. Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of bile. Quite the contrary, it's based on fact. Not in evidence. I provided you with links to both the NY Times and MSNBC, both of which clearly show spending on Health and Human Services on the order of $1tril, far exceeding defense. Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget in graphical terms even you may be able to understand: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/ It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion *but not including Fatherland Security * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png and the Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. *That is an order of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to be totally clueless about that with you spout. * *And if you want to count Social Security, that is another $818bil. Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion column right-hand side The only problem with that Wikipedia cite, where anyone can edit anythiing, is that it conveniently leaves out all Medicare and *Medicaid payments which are the vast *MAJORITY of spending on Health and Human Services. * This is another new trick, along *the lines of "number of jobs saved", that is being used to try to fool people who don't know any better. * In your case, it obviously worked. Anyone, at anytime can look at the site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png Are you so lame as to suggest that I'm so desperate to look smart in front of an idiot like you, that I would doctor a web site? Are you stark raving insane? I did not say you doctored Wikipedia, only that it's an open forum and anyone can edit what's posted there. In other words, it would not be my first choice as a credible reference for anything. There are folks who want to distort things for their own purposes because their arguments won't stand on their own. In the case in point, this is done by taking only DISCRETIONARY spending on Health and Human Services and leaving out the biggest part, Medicare and Medicaid. Then you try to compare it to the defense budget, with is a totally bogus comparison. I gave you a link to MSNBC that shows it all in pretty block diagrams. *And the Health and Human services block sure ain't your ridiculous 78bil. *It's closer to $1tril, significantly larger than the defense budget. * Don't believe MSNBC? * Here's the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...0119-budget/in... Look at the Health and Human Services block compared to defense. *Still want to lie that it's only 78bil? and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from withholdings on your wages. Wrong, while the money coming in to pay for it is from the social security withholdings, *it's part of the $3.7 trillion federal budget.. * Unless you think MSNBC, NY Times, CBO, etc are lying. * Social security is right there as part of the $3.7tril budget spending. Because the retirement money went into the general fund. I don't have time to help you read. Oh, OK, so in your world, social security revenue counts when it comes into the federal budget, but not when it goes out. Figures. You explain to us how if social security is not included in the budget how the budget for 2012 is $3.7 tril http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States We are 5% of the worlds population. We don't need to spend half of the worlds military budget while supporting over a 1000 bases around the world. The biggest threat that we have to our democracy is here in America. The country is dying. We need jobs, and we need to get the blood sucking leaches off of us. If you want to have that discussion, then you need to be honest and not start off with gross distortions. You tried to claim that spending on defense is 10X what it is on Health and Human Services. You did that by leaving out the biggest part of health spending, which is Medicare and Medicaid. When you include them, as any reasonable person would, then you find that spending on HHS is about 1.5X what it is on defense. If I were to similarly distort things, it would be like talking about defense spending and leaving out the Navy and AirForce. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Poor Planning and good planning - long | King's Crown | Weightwatchers | 6 | September 5th, 2006 03:57 PM |
menu planning | malaka | General Discussion | 30 | January 30th, 2006 07:21 PM |
Phentermine 3 month supply as low as $33 per month, Free UPS shipping | [email protected] | Medications related to Weight Control | 0 | March 8th, 2005 05:31 PM |
How Does Planning Help You? | Al Fresco | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 5 | February 7th, 2004 04:48 PM |
Im planning ahead | Preesi | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | December 21st, 2003 02:43 PM |