Lurker > shevman

Does your fridge have watermelon, fried chicken or orange soda?

You dodged a bullet bro. Better now than after you guys were married or something. Good luck with everything

Lol at anyone who legitimately voted for Gary Johnson


Guy is an absolute moron.

MJ_Max posted...

Ultima Dragon posted...

That's all it takes, but for most overweight people they make it seem like it's an impossible feat. They should know that nothing in life comes easy. If you want something bad enough it's worth fighting for.

But what if you were 10x hungrier all the time? That's what I mean. I've always been skinny and can't fathom eating enough food to get that big. But if the urge to eat was 10x stronger, who knows? Humans are all different and people that get that big HAVE to be feeling the sensation of hunger differently than me, because I wouldn't be able to do that without vomiting and obviously they can.

You ignore the hunger signals - with time they decrease in intensity and will largely go away once your body converts to metabolising your fat. If that's "too hard" for someone to do, they only have themselves to blame for their obesity and we shouldn't feel sorry for them

These pictures are liberal CE members in a nutshell. What's great is they'll deny it, just like the MSM will deny their hypocrisy and be oblivious to their ridiculousness.

I posted this in the other topic;

0.49*31 = 15.19mil Trump Bots
0.21*89 = 18.69mil Obama Bots

Obama has more bots than Trump confirmed.

Whoever agreed to take on his surgery without him losing weight first is an absolute cowboy and risks killing him on the operating table.
Bariatric surgery is useless without motive to lose weight, which boogie does not have. He wants a quick fix which doesn't exist. Bariatric surgery is not a quick fix, it's a last resort for motivated people who can't keep the weight off for various reasons but have demonstrated that they are capable of losing weight.

0.49*31 = 15.19mil Trump Bots
0.21*89 = 18.69mil Obama Bots

Obama has more bots than Trump confirmed. That's pretty funny!

If you put as much effort into losing weight as you do shitposting you wouldn't be such a pathetic sack of fat shit that you see in the mirror every morning (if you manage to get up to see it).

What you want is at least 3 different meal plan days for some variety otherwise you will lose your mind eating the same shit every single day. So an example would be something like:
Day 1
Breakfast: 1 glass of water, warm
Lunch: 1 jug of water, cool
Dinner: 2 cups water, room temp
Total calories: 0

Day 2
Breakfast: 1 bowl of mild water
Lunch: 1 litre bottle of water, handful of ice
Dinner: 10 tablespoons of ice cold water followed by a half jug of warm water
Total calories: 0

Day 3
Breakfast: one mouthful of water (this can be your morning tooth brushing water, swallowed instead of spat out #efficiency)
Lunch: 5 hand scoops of water from sink, medium temp
Dinner: Run tap water into your mouth for 30 straight seconds, any temp you like
Total calories: 0

If you do something like this for a month I guarantee you will see results.

joe40001 posted...

Videos where people document themselves each step of the way and the results are not "anecdotes", they show on video that they feel and look better, so why are you dismissing them?

That is literally the definition of an anecdote.

Also you continue for 3 posts now to ignore my question:
Why don't you start by clearly defining what you mean by "toxins" and "flushing" if you are going to continue to claim that this diet has health benefits.

joe40001 posted...

shevman posted...

Health expert here.

Can you define or give an example of what a "toxin" is? Because I'm not aware of any scientifically proven "toxins".

You mentioned sodium earlier. Sodium is a natural electrolyte that your body needs to function. It is not a "toxin". Diluting your sodium with polydipsia is dangerous. Concentrating your sodium with dehydration is also dangerous. You want to have a normal level of sodium in your bloodstream which you almost certainly already have because your kidneys regulate this for you. Drinking water won't affect your electrolytes unless you drink a huge amount of water - which will be detrimental to your health.

You talk a lot about "flushing" the system. Your body isn't a toilet, it doesn't work like that. Drinking lots of water while not eating won't have any "flushing" effect. I suggest you read up on how the kidneys work, your lack of knowledge is disturbing.

Will you lose weight on this water diet? Certainly because you're not eating. Is starving yourself for a week good for your health and metabolism? Probably not.

I'm doing water fasting, there are plenty of people on the internet that have talked about and documented their successes with it, if you want to dispute them all, you can, I am choosing to believe them particularly the ones who keep video diaries where you can see and here them talk about how they get better and feel better and you can also see them lose the weight in a way that they seem overall considerably better off afterwards.

Are these people CGI experts who are digitally removing the weight or digitally making themselves look better/healthier? Are they lying because they are in the pocket of "big water"?

As I said a bunch: This is something I am doing for me because it will be good for me, I should have never indulged the people who seemed to act like whether they think it's a good idea mattered.

There are very few things you could commit to doing on CE that people wouldn't try to say why it's a bad idea or will fail. There is no point in arguing this, watch those videos, see if all those people are making it up.

1. I never disputed that you will lose weight on this diet. Of course you will - you're not eating anything for a week.

2. I am not interested in disproving people's anecdotes. Why don't you start by clearly defining what you mean by "toxins" and "flushing" if you are going to continue to claim that this diet has health benefits.

Health expert here.

Can you define or give an example of what a "toxin" is? Because I'm not aware of any scientifically proven "toxins".

You mentioned sodium earlier. Sodium is a natural electrolyte that your body needs to function. It is not a "toxin". Diluting your sodium with polydipsia is dangerous. Concentrating your sodium with dehydration is also dangerous. You want to have a normal level of sodium in your bloodstream which you almost certainly already have because your kidneys regulate this for you. Drinking water won't affect your electrolytes unless you drink a huge amount of water - which will be detrimental to your health.

You talk a lot about "flushing" the system. Your body isn't a toilet, it doesn't work like that. Drinking lots of water while not eating won't have any "flushing" effect. I suggest you read up on how the kidneys work, your lack of knowledge is disturbing.

You mention that you'll be healthier than someone who doesn't drink much water. Again you are incorrect. Most of our water consumption actually comes from the food we eat. That's where the whole "8 glasses of water a day" mantra originally came from. It was an old study that looked at how much water a human needs, but the glasses of water recommendation never took into account the fact that 80% of our water comes from food. You don't actually need to drink 8 glasses if you're eating food. This water diet won't make you healthier than someone who drinks only 1 glass of water a day. In fact I would bet on you being less healthy than them.

Will you lose weight on this water diet? Certainly because you're not eating. Is starving yourself for a week good for your health and metabolism? Probably not.

fenderbender321 posted...

shevman posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

I want to tell you guys about the dirty little secrets of universal healthcare.

People may get universal coverage, but you can still be DENIED of procedures. That's right, healthcare providers can turn you away. There's a long waiting time to get certain procedures and you can wait for months, if not years.

- My friend's friend's father who lives in England died recently because he couldn't get proper followup treatment after having a stroke. He died while waiting to get treated. How f***** up is that?

- The relative of a friend only get a limited amount of visits in Norway for her pregnancy. She had a miscarriage. Maybe it's not the fault of the system, but she still had limited amount of visits. Any additional visits must be paid out of pocket.

People think it's unicorn and rainbows. It's not. With 330 Million people and about 70 million obese people, the wait for proper medical treatment is a long, long, long wait.

Nice fearmongering. What you fail to disclose is that the UK and other UHS systems have significantly higher life expectancies than the USA, and spend significantly less money achieving these better health outcomes. DESPITE rationing of resources and longer waiting times.

Life expectancy isn't entirely a product of accessible, affordable, or quality of health care. It isn't even a product of those 3 things combined. Genetics, lifestyle, diet, exercising habits, and even things like the climate and weather as well as many other things all affect how long a person lives. The fact that Americans drive automobiles more than any other country alone has a pretty significant effect on the average life span.

All of those lifestyle factors have significantly deteriorated in developed nations over the past 50 years so you're completely wrong there. The advent of Penicillin nearly doubled human life expectancy, so again - you're misrepresenting the importance of healthcare when it comes to life expectancy.

I'd own CE's vocal regressives and show them what a hard day's work looks like.

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

I want to tell you guys about the dirty little secrets of universal healthcare.

People may get universal coverage, but you can still be DENIED of procedures. That's right, healthcare providers can turn you away. There's a long waiting time to get certain procedures and you can wait for months, if not years.

- My friend's friend's father who lives in England died recently because he couldn't get proper followup treatment after having a stroke. He died while waiting to get treated. How f***** up is that?

- The relative of a friend only get a limited amount of visits in Norway for her pregnancy. She had a miscarriage. Maybe it's not the fault of the system, but she still had limited amount of visits. Any additional visits must be paid out of pocket.

People think it's unicorn and rainbows. It's not. With 330 Million people and about 70 million obese people, the wait for proper medical treatment is a long, long, long wait.

Nice fearmongering. What you fail to disclose is that the UK and other UHS systems have significantly higher life expectancies than the USA, and spend significantly less money achieving these better health outcomes. DESPITE rationing of resources and longer waiting times.

KnicksRGarbage posted...

shevman posted...

KnicksRGarbage posted...

shevman posted...

KnicksRGarbage posted...

Why do kids keep saying that....no matter your bank account you will be treated.

I thought you just said we weren't guaranteed anyone's labour or money. Why is treatment guaranteed then?

KnicksRGarbage posted...

why should someone else pay for someone elses injury esp if the injury happened because of negligence

Wait but you just said no matter your bank account you will be treated.
Which is it??

I asked a question....if you cant apply context to posts dont quote me or engage in a conversation with me.

@shevman

You asked rhetorical questions and formed conflicting statements so how about you clarify your position here.
If the government cannot demand labour why is treatment guaranteed?

I didnt tho....read and use context n reading comprehension. People awlays so quick to prove someone wrong that they sacrifice common sense

So what's your nuanced context to "no matter your bank account you will be treated"? Cos I got the impression that was a general statement/truism.

KnicksRGarbage posted...

shevman posted...

KnicksRGarbage posted...

Why do kids keep saying that....no matter your bank account you will be treated.

I thought you just said we weren't guaranteed anyone's labour or money. Why is treatment guaranteed then?

KnicksRGarbage posted...

why should someone else pay for someone elses injury esp if the injury happened because of negligence

Wait but you just said no matter your bank account you will be treated.
Which is it??

I asked a question....if you cant apply context to posts dont quote me or engage in a conversation with me.

@shevman

You asked rhetorical questions and formed conflicting statements so how about you clarify your position here.
If the government cannot demand labour why is treatment guaranteed?

GFaceKillah1280 posted...

Should healthcare services be run by the government?
How should healthcare services be paid for?
If it is paid for out of general tax revenue, how do you determine how much in services a particular citizen is entitled to?
How do you determine how much a person owes in taxes?

1. Yes.
2. Paid for by the taxpayer.
3. The citizens are entitled to as much as they need and qualify for. Services are rationed by Governmental guidelines which outline the criteria for treatment to be funded.
4. The same way we do right now, income based taxation.

KnicksRGarbage posted...

Why do kids keep saying that....no matter your bank account you will be treated.

I thought you just said we weren't guaranteed anyone's labour or money. Why is treatment guaranteed then?

KnicksRGarbage posted...

why should someone else pay for someone elses injury esp if the injury happened because of negligence

Wait but you just said no matter your bank account you will be treated.
Which is it??

g7g7g7g7 posted...

Basic human right, no. Nice thing to have in a civilised modern society, yes.

America has some forms of socialised medicine already, there are systems of "socialism laundering" all over the U.S. healthcare system with the state paying massive chunks of the bill through taxation at the back door out of sight. It's ludicrously expensive mind you with the American state paying more for healthcare per capita than the UK does on the NHS, with citizens paying out the same amount again on top of that for private provision.

You already spend more on healthcare at a state level than most developed countries do to get universal coverage, you should already have universal healthcare, you fucking pay enough for it.

American healthcare spending is three times that of other developed nations BECAUSE it is a privatised system. Universal healthcare systems are more cost effective because there are limited resources and pressure to get the most bang for your buck. Private healthcare institutions bleed Americans for everything they have because payment is guaranteed by Private Insurance. Its an expensive and cost-inefficient system, with no tangible population health benefit.

darkjedilink posted...

shevman posted...

darkjedilink posted...

Only because the entire developed world thinks everyone should work for free.

What?

Nobody has an innate right so the efforts of others.

Medicine has a code of ethics which transcends this completely. A doctor is legally obliged to help a person in distress on the side of the road. Ignoring them is a prosecutable offense.

The Hyppocratic Oath is different than free health care, and you do a disservice to your position by suggesting they are linked.

The point is that if your position is "Nobody has an innate right so the efforts of others.", you don't have a leg to stand on.

darkjedilink posted...

Only because the entire developed world thinks everyone should work for free.

What?

Nobody has an innate right so the efforts of others.

Medicine has a code of ethics which transcends this completely. A doctor is legally obliged to help a person in distress on the side of the road. Ignoring them is a prosecutable offense.

It's one guy being an annoying ass for a couple min, with a couple other guys agreeing with him when he's all "am I right fellas?".

She then states "just in case you were wondering - this is what SEXUAL HARASSMENT looks like", which sets the dude off completely because she's way off base.

The sexism directed at her is absolutely not ok, but crying sexual abuse at what is simply misogyny does not help her case.

At the end of the day, toxic people will be toxic. This guy would have abused her regardless of her sex. Her being outed as a female gave him an easy focus for his toxicity. Guys like this will be toxic to anyone on their team for whatever fault they can find.

As a side note, she's a terrible Mercy player for a level 900 player.

As per the World Health Organisation, Healthcare is a basic human right.
The entire developed world adheres to this notion.

QuantumScript posted...

i dont see how it could be a right without also claiming food and housing are rights too. you arent entitled to someone else's labor, that'd be slavery.

Food and Housing are also considered basic human rights by the entire developed world - including America. That's why even the American welfare system provides food and housing to impoverished citizens. Its also why most developed nations send Food and Housing aid to Impoverished 3rd World countries - because we believe they are also entitled to have this basic human right even though their Government cannot afford to provide them.

Demanding that the Government provides free and accessible healthcare is not a demand on a person's labour. Healthcare workers in such a system are employed by the Government to provide said healthcare - this is not slavery, its a job.

This is it, he's finally headed for impeachment. He pissed off the wrong guy and the truth will finally come out. Just wait until Comey goes to the Senate Intelligence Committee to testif-

https://mobile.twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/863124596815532032

Giant_Aspirin posted...

no, but he did fire someone in charge of investigating him

Damn you're right, Trump is so cunning. If he fires the director then everyone else involved in the investigation will simply forget all the evidence they have seen up to now.

Come on CE how hard are you sucking on that MSM narrative teat?

It's hilarious how Islam apologists like to site Indonesia as a "progressive-moderate" Islamic state because they used to have a female president.

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. [Or at ths time in history, a Roman -ed.]

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."


- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

- War on Terrorism
- France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

What are your thoughts on white/black interracial porn TC?

_PandaMaster_ posted...

Tell me about her before I give an opinion.

Her boyfriend is black

Wtf how else do you want him to say it?

"These worshippers of Allah subjugate their homosexual victims to death by terminal velocity from the precipice of skyscrapers"

That original enough for you?
Miss me with your noise liheral

StarReaper13 posted...

Except they pointed guns at them, under suspicion and with the evidence, or lack of, that's not okay,

Uh yeah, they pointed guns at potentially ARMED suspects. Granted, it turned out these guys weren't the actual suspects and weren't armed, but the police have no way of knowing that beforehand and need to be able to control a potentially dangerous and volatile situation as well as protect themselves.

Medussa posted...

why is it so much to ask for them to do some actual police work, and make sure they have the right people?

Isn't that exactly what they did? They identified potential suspects, detained them to obtain further information and then let them go free once it was clear they weren't the suspects.

Sativa_Rose posted...

In other words, if you live in the ghetto and are black, you should expect to have guns pulled on you and that should be considered normal

No wonder Ice T's Cop Killer was such a big hit

Yes, considering that "normality" in these neighbourhoods is unfortunately lethal gang violence, the police need to be involved in such a manner. Or would you rather the police not intervene when there are armed suspects committing crime?

Kim Kusanagi posted...

really, am I, trumpanzee? Hahahaha.

Might want some vinegar to go with that much salt.

Keep going this is great

That's rich coming from one of the saltiest users on CE, do you really lack that much self awareness?

Kim Kusaneanderthal Playlist:

"Not my president"
"Tax returns"
"LITERALLY HITLER"
"Racist, misogynistic, homophobic, islamophobic"
"Hillary won the popular vote"
"He's working for Russia/Putin"
"White Supremacists"
"The polls agree with me Americans hate Trump"
"Trump will never get the nomination"
"Trump will never beat Hillary"
"Trump will never get re-elected"

She's actually quite cute with straight hair. Ugly af with the dreads. Why do ppl do dis

The end goal of hot nurses is to hook up and marry a doctor so they can become a housewife.
The middle aged career nurses you see are the leftover ones who weren't attractive enough to pull that off.

This may sound like a sexist post but I work with nurses and they have confessed to the above believe it or not.

Yeah I mean why would we believe that a group of savage terrorists who kidnap civilians and behead them and desecrate religious sites would use chemical weapons? Surely it was Assad using chemical weapons on his own people which he found a necessary thing to do at this stage despite making tremendous strides recently in taking back territory and driving ISIS out of his country.

Imagine unironically going to an anti-trump protest. Imagine.

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

TheRealItachi posted...

The "common sense" argument for no AV is completely and utterly stupid, just a FYI, TC.

Had my current PC for 4 years and never had antivirus/anti malware software on it.
Never had a virus. MAYBE there's some malware in the background that I'm unaware of, but I've never had an account stolen, nor my credit card info stolen, so whatever is there isn't really that malicious.