Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/9/14 09:32 AM, morefngdbs wrote: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/05/asset-forfeiture

The Yahoo! article was also fairly down the middle. What I am looking for is legal proof of the program. Is this just happening or is there an actual law that forms the basis of this?

At 10/8/14 05:33 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: This is something that needs to be stopped: https://autos.yahoo.com/news/how-cops-take-millions-from-motorists-not-charged-with-crimes-215603712.html

I wish some of these sites that reported on thing would contain adequate citation. No ,Yahoo!, I won't take your word for it.

I looked around and was unable to find any statute that authorizes these such siezures. Anyone else find anything?

As far as the story goes, if what they say is 100% true, that very much appears to be a violation of the 4th amendment. Siezing is OK, but siezing without harging a crime? That is a serious problem.

At 10/8/14 02:42 AM, Warforger wrote: Now humans aren't inherently selfish, in fact for the vast majority of human history people were hunters and gatherers and they were anti-selfish.

I would definitely clarify this. Humans are etremely selfish, just not personally. While groups may share amongst their community, they are willing to kill in order to keep others from having but a nibble.

On top of that, there have been personally selfish humans since long before Adam Smith. The only difference between recently and before is that now a huge number of people are wealthy enough to be able to afford to be completely selfish.

At 10/7/14 12:08 AM, LordJaric wrote: Did I miss something or has Youtube been getting dumber.

Were many Youtube joke memes ever very funny?

Saying society is held in check by the honor system is a horrible description.

While it technically is true that if we all worked together to do whatever we wanted there is little that could stop us, using the term honor statement doesn't properly cover it. The reason we accept the laws and governance and choose not to have an impropmtu purge (like the movie) is because we are looking out for our best interest. We may be able to gain smething by doing whatever we want, but we then lose a ton because of it. Not n only would we lose most of the benefits of modern society and science, which are built upon a stable society, we would lose fundamental things such as access to food, protection from outsiders, and the ability to safely procreate.

Your Lord of the Flies example doesn't dispute this and doesn't show that our primal instincts don't like government. (I'll ignore the fact the the book is fiction for the sake of argument) What Lord of the Flies does is actually reinforce our need for cooperatin and society. What happens in Lord of the Flies is catastrophic. Unexperienced children are deposited on a seemingly resource bare island. This results in a situation where there are far more people than the location can reasonably support. What you see in the book is the galvanization of part of the students against others in a competition to secure control of the island of what little the children are able to reap from it. Sure, the kids do horrible things to each other, but if you really look at it, it's a groups of kids doing bad things to what they have deemed as the outsiders. The kids naturally formed a social goverment group and used it to stengthen their ability to get food and water.

Even in the age of massive governments and societies you can see this. The fights over oil and territory present and us versus them scenario that ends up benefitting the society making the move. The people may not wholly support it, but they accept it because overall the society is too beneficial to sacrifice.

At 10/4/14 11:44 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The science is "settled" but most of the predictions have been disastrously wrong. Odd, that.

The science is settled. Those predictions that have not come true are little more than bombastic claims made in order to get people on board. They tend to be based very little in the actual science. The average person is too stupid to understand the actual science and its ramifications. A change in sea temperature of several degrees could lead to severe changes, but not severe enough or quick enough to convice the dumb or those who shun all science that doesn't line their pockets.

I also like the selective acceptance of "science being settled" by progressives. The science is also settled on GMOs but that apparently isn't worth very much.

You'll find many progressives who think the whole "GMOs are bad" fad to be a nasty stinky shitstain on progressivism. The people who believe the fad are slefish, ignorant fuckheads. They not only bludgeon others with science and then completely ignore it when it suits them, they support a movement that overtly deprives the needy of food because of some pseudoscientific scare their pot smoking yoga instructor told them over an herbal chai tea.

Goldman Sachs and Al Gore stand to make billions from cap and trade legislation, but uh yeah don't tell anyone, k.

Point still stands. Those who possibly stand to lose a lot (a hell of a lot more than Sachs and Gore stand to make) are pretty much the sole reason nothing has been done.

Then smaller countries should sign a dominance-assurance pact whereby they agree to introduce carbon legislation once and only once larger countries agree to. A carbon tax in australia isn't going to do anything except hurt its economic well-being.

I don't give a fuck about the smaller countries. Being poor, shitty, and 300 years behind is no excuse to shit all over everyone else. Were we doing the nasty stuff before? There's a big difference between doing it when you don't know it's bad and doing it knowing full well it is bad. If these countries didn't want to be on the bad side of environmental legislation, they should have thought about tht when they were too busy not moving ahead with the rest of the world. Japan and Korea are perfect exapmles of how ANY of those dank shitholes could have pulled themselves up and gotten with the program.

So you're saying you oppose democracy?

If 90% of Americans believed the Moon was made of cheese, your blind of Democracy would force you to believe that it must be true?

At 10/4/14 10:32 AM, Ericho wrote: Maybe the logic is that it will stop people from eating them.

If the taste and texture alone aren't enough, I don't know what is.

At 10/3/14 04:48 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Australians by and large support less immigration but I'm sure you think that that's not worth very much.

Not sure a former penal colony really has the moral high ground to oppose immigration...

At 10/1/14 12:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: drunk women aren't responsible for their own actions. drunk men are, of course.

If both parties are drunk it becomes a completely different issue. Here both parties could legitimately claim rape and they both could claim intoxication. So nice try, but another failure of your absent logic. I'm actually surprised you didn't try to blame this on black people.

At 9/30/14 11:08 PM, TheMajormel wrote: California is such a dumb ass state. This law will do nothing to prevent actual rapists from attacking people, these guys know what they are doing is fucked up. In the end, it's gonna hurt the accused and it still will be a "he said,she said" situation unless you have proof both parties consented.

Nope. You have a ton wrong here. First off, the law is not meant to deal with predatory violent rapists. It's ment to deal with the lighter rapists who target weak and drunk women.

Second, it doesn't change any of the legal roof needed to prove rape in court, as the level of consent this bill defines akready exist. A person who is intoxicated cannot consent. A an act or form of spoken consent that is not equivocal is not consent. An act of consent must be reasonably percievable by a normal person as an act of consent for it to be considered consent. Everything needed to prove these will remain as these are already well entranched portiona of rape law.

Finally, this law only deals with college policies on the matter. Because students far too often choose to bypass the actual police in favor of going to the university, and universities have far too often severely neglected their duty to help the victims, this law seeks to force universities to conform their policies to those of the criminal justice system.

It pays to know a little about a subject before popping off, especially in a boneheaded and dense manner.

At 9/30/14 04:27 PM, TNT wrote: I was just interviewed with the Williamson County Juvenile Department for the Juvenile Supervision Officer position. There's only one opening, and I felt like, even though I didn't wow them on my answers, they were decent. What I think I did well on was body language, the suit I wore, and my mannerisms. I plan on taking a tour of their facility in a couple of days.

Nice. The law clerk position I had was in the local juvenile department. Though I spent most of my time of dependency (child welfare) I did do several juvenile delinquency trials. I also chatted with the juvenile counselors (as they're called here) a lot.

At 9/28/14 11:46 PM, Th-e wrote: Regardless of how much this message has been ignored by the man who said it,

This is the laziest talking point ever. It acts as if there is a magical solution to fixing the debt, especially in the midst of the worst recession in 80 years. It also ignores the dramatic reduction in the yearly defecit, and the reduced growth of the debt. It also conveniently takes blame away from the man who really got the mess going with horrible financial moves, and makes an attempt to Hoover the man who came after.

But hey, there are enough dumb people out there who believe that load of shit covered tripe, so it makes a successful spurious and disingenuous talking point.

After 2 years, several tries, and numerous health issues, I have finally passed the bar.

Just to make me feel good, the bar decided to mess up the formatting of the list and put half of someone else's name onto mine.

At 9/18/14 08:08 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 9/18/14 08:05 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: What will be the first thing you make in your oven?

Boiled Creme treats, obviously! The bulk of my cooking takes place in a slow cooker, but that can't do things like make pastries.

Personally, I hate baking. It's so boring and leaves very little room for amatuer experimentation.

At 9/17/14 09:44 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: In the meantime, I've also been reading about hysterectomy to make sure it's what I want to do. So far, I'm not seeing anything that will change my mind, but I have some more time.

As far as invasive procedures go, it's not abnormally dangerous. Then again, all invasive surgeries have a sizeable degree of danger. I am waiting my invasive surgery, though mine involve th einsertion rather than the extraction of an organ.

My in-laws are coming to town on Saturday and we'll give them the news in person, since we figured that was more appropriate. I wonder how they'll take it. I figured I already was going to have some sort of conflict since they were pushing for grandkids and I had no intention, but maybe being unable to support a pregnancy either way might alleviate some issues. I dunno.

If they're good people they will understand. Anyway, there's always the option of adopting. Family is more about the love, caring, and the relationship rather than the blood. So you can still have kids, they just wouldn't be your biological kids.

At 9/16/14 09:32 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: My mom is trying to convince me to get an IUD and wait. Honestly, I don't think it will help, and there are multiple reasons I don't want an IUD. All the other methods do is just slow the disease's progression, so surgery might be inevitable in the end and I'd rather not make myself more miserable. I hope this doesn't become a major issue with my family.

If the surgery is an inevitible outcome, you could say that you're choosing to have it while your young and healthy. A histerectomy is no small surgery. It's a serious invasive procedure and has the possibility for problems. If you're healthy you have a better chance of getting through the surgery just fine.

My gut says, though this is entirely not based in any knowledge, just a gut feeling, that a disorder that would need a histerectomy could cause serious problems for the pregnancy, even if the disorder is in remission. It may be a good idea to talk to the doctor and get a full rundown of all the options and consequences, and anything regarding childbirth.

It sounds like you have some time to make a decision, so why not take the extra effort to ensure you make the most well informed decision you can? Heck, sleeping on it can change your mind. With my treatment the doctors had indicated they wanted to put me back onto the direct blood treatment. I initially held off because I thought it was worse, but now that I have been on it for a while, I am glad I finally came around to it. So give yourself some time. Think it over. Make sure the decision is what you really want.

At 9/16/14 03:46 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I'm having a hysterectomy sometime in the near future.

Well, fuck. That sucks.

Finally got an answer. Turns out I have a condition called adenomyosis. I could get an IUD or hormones, but they just help with symptoms and don't actually treat anything. So I might as well put an end to all of the problems now. No, the surgery hasn't been scheduled yet. Likely in October since my parents are currently out of the country. Among all the things I feel now, I'm just happy to be rid of the part that's made me miserable for 21 years.

Regardless of what you choose, it seems like all the options pretty much render having children out of the picture for you. That's a bummer, even if you currently did not want children. It's one thing to choose to not have children, it's entirely another for something else to make that decision for you.

In the end, I hope all ends well.

At 9/16/14 03:18 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: That typically happens around adolescence. Another thing happens around adolescence: puberty. Girls become more girly, and boys become more boyish because of estrogen and testosterone respectively.

Nothing about estrogen and testosterone gears men toward the sciences and women away. These hormones do make for other changes in the sexes, but the one you dicuss is a mere correlation with no causation. Do remember, that by this point boys and girls have had over a decade of societal conditioning as to what they should do. The sexual factor also plays a huge role. Men still do not like women smarter than them. This means that women who strive to excel at the STEM subjects also tend to have more difficulty attracting the opposite sex.

At 9/16/14 05:00 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Another thing, I see more conditioning for girls to act like boys and for boys to act like girls than I see the other way around.

What do you mean? I have seen little to none of this (save for those fucknut parents who do it for their own personal attention, not for the child)

Basically, very young boys were put in pink rooms and given barbies, girls were put in blue rooms with G.I. Joes. Not long after, the girls started looking for different outfits to accessorize their G.I. Joe with, and the little boys were having war games with the Barbies.

Very young children still have had a great deal of time to be conditioned. Now, there is some (SOME) biological backing for this cleavage between the sexes, but it also has a great deal to do with conditioning. It is true that bys have a tendency to play war games. It is true that girls hve a tendency to play mommy games. However, it's extremely difficult to tell whether thi is conditioning or instinct ( my guess is it's a mixture of both with heavy emphasis on conditioning). Have you ever watched new parents (or purused your facebook feed and seen what new parents do?) The boys, from a young age are given sports shirts, macho shirts, and realtively violent subject matter on their baby clothes. The parents begin their life with masculine toys (my kiddo was given the stuffed bulldog I had at my birth) and they play masculine games, which at infancy include mere fist bumping. Girls, on the other hand, are given tons of clothes and tones of frilly clothes. They are given very feminine toys and clothes.

Now, EVEN IF the parents were a blank slate on the matter, the child will get conditioned by other already conditioned children when they go to preschool or school.

There may be some biology to the issue, but you cannot act as if conditioning is a non issue on the matter. Gender conditioning is damn near constant from birth until death. Mind you, I'm fine with gender conditioning up to the point it begins to detract from the child's opportunities.

At 9/16/14 03:08 AM, Zazzzzzzzz wrote: I don't understand how saying that often times women don't naturally enjoy STEM jobs is lazy.

The statement isn't lazy. The statement is just flat out wrong.

Young girls show equal interest in science and math that young boys do. It is not until after extensive conditioning that tells girls STEM is for boys and people asking the girls why they don't do girl stuff instead of playing with rocks that the interest in STEM begins to drop.

At 9/14/14 12:31 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Its not more expensive, when you look at the health gains !

Aside from many of your choices being more than double the cost of eating regularly healthy (and already pretty expensively), many of your choices have been shown to be total bunk.

Be just as wary of the peddlers of health foods and health fads. They may not be poisoning your body, but their ability to get otherwise intelligent folks to buy into pure snake oil is a definite poisoning of the mind. As someone who is having their body fail them, I can definitely say, the mind is a hell of a bigger thing to let go of than your body.

At 9/13/14 12:41 AM, Ranger2 wrote: Our goal is not to eliminate ISIS and put in a democracy, but to weaken ISIS and put it in a corner.

And then what? Leave the same exact power vacuum that gave birth to ISIS?

Example of current sentencing guidelines.

At 9/12/14 12:56 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Because they represent a threat to us,

Proof. I hear this claim tossed around like an ASU girl's salad (i.e. A LOT). No one has yet to provide even the most pathetically weak shred of evidence to back this up.

and because nobody else is stepping up.

This is bullshit circular reasoning.

"Why is no one stepping up?"
"Because we have essentially co-opted their role in the region and many of them resent us for that."
"OK, because no one is stepping up because of us, we must step up!"

The US is not charging into this confidently and eagerly as we did in 2003. Obama has been working with other NATO and Arab countries and has acknowledged this will be a tough battle.

If that wer the ctual problem with the 2003 Iraq war, I wouldn't e saying anythng. It's not. It was a problem, but merely a political one.

Our problem is we don't understand rabic culture or history and we can't seem to care. We may be able to build a European style nation (see Germany and Japan) but we suck (harder than an ASU girl toward everything with 2 legs) at nation building other styles. Even then, we were not politically ready to do what was needed, at we definitely are not politically ready now. It took us 8 years of full military occupation in Japan where they were happy to have us. Even then, we left tens of thousands of troops behind. Germany was a similar story. Americans as a people are not willing to stand by as a violent occupation costs American lives and billions of dollars over a period that would probably need to last 20+ years to work properly.

We have no business fixing this problem. At most we need to do as much as we did in Libya and let those in the region care and do the leg work. It's their region and thier problem, not ours.

Feminism as a movement is a very tough nut to crack.

The movement has very noble goals, being the achievement of equality between the genders/sexes. The silent majority of feminists follow this vry well. However, as far as the movement itself, it has some serious problems.

Now, as far as the probems go, I'm not going to talk about the fringe groups thatactually dislike men, or want superiority for women. I know these groups are few and far between, and mst of the people who claim this are way off.

The problems that do exist are:
Poor message management.
The group doesn't know what it wants (in speific terms) and doesn't know how to get there.
Many of its messages, the smaller ones, carry built in contradictions and problems.
Their messages seem to be largely and horribly misplaced.
Feminism doesn't understand the differences between men and women enough to communicate.

-- Poor Message Management --
Modern feminism has a very strong message problem. Muddled with the proper messages such as equality and grabbing people's attention to the problems women actually face, far too common lie messages of browbeating and bridge burning. Assuming a major goal of feminism is to make sweeping changes regarding the treatment of women, the last thng the group needs to do is turn people off and burn bridges. The Not All Men meme was a perfect example of this. It started with women saying "I hate it when men..." This gave the impression to many men that feminists were labelling all, even though they were not (hamfistedly not, but still not). Instead of saying "Hey, as a group let's fix our message" they responded by ridiculing those who called the group out on its generalizations. They started off by insulting men (unintentionally, I think...) and then when they got caught, they made fun of those who caught them. I have heard one person say "after all women have been through, why should it be their responsibility to cater the message?" Well, it sure isn't the listener's responsibility to infer your meaning and craft your message for you. Feminism wishes to spread a message, they need to spread that message in a way those who listen will hear it.

-- Doesn't know what it wants and doesn't know how to get there --
Womens' (women's?) rights have come so far to the point where the answer to how to make things better isn't easy anymore. It's not like gay rights where gay marriage is a visible and fairly black and white topic. So, with this, feminism wants to be treated equally, but it doesn't really know how to measure it or how to get it. So feminism, instead of really working toward a goal, tends to spend much time like a chicken with its head cut off. Most of its words and actions are not geared toward any specific goal other than posturing and declaration of feminism. This has lead to too much of the poor messages, and a whole ton of groupthink.

-- Contradictions and problems --
Some of the messages and wants of feminism carry flat out contradictions or horible logical and integrity prolems. The low end of rape culture is rife with this. The cry is that men should just leave women alone at all times because any man could be a rapist. Yes, I get the point, catcalling and stuff alike is just plain stupid. However, there is amassive mixed messages. How many times have women openly swooned over acts the Ryan Gossling did to a women he didn't know in a movie that when done by a stranger to them, they would cry rape culture? They say with one side of their mouth that they wish it would happen to them and call it rape culture out of the other. Also, in many cases the difference between courtship and rape culture is a 100% subjective and rarely communicated opinion held by the woman as to whether she finds the man attractive. If you're looking to set standards, they have to be STANDARD, and cannot rely on a hidden opinion held by the person. I won't even get into the game of "hard to get".

-- Misplaced messages --
How often have you seen messages trying to reach out to you on facebook regarding feminism? I have seen a ton. As a recipient of these messages you are essentially tied. If you're not one of the men who would perpetrate the acts they decry (and who would probably not give two shits about a message sent by a woman on facebook) what can you do? If you don't think acting like thoes guys is OK, the message becomes little more than preaching to the choir. So instead of the messages going anywhere, they either reach those who already agree, or they fail to reach those who matter.

-- Women don't understand male communication --
This could be made a bigger topic, but I won't talk about mansplaining. I will simply leave it to a well known difference in how men and women discuss their problems. Women tend to discuss problems to vent, commserate, and recieve validation. Men discuss problems to look for help and solutions. The problem feminism has is that its target is mostly men, yet it talks in a matter of venting, commiserating, and searching for validation. So when men hear it, they most often respond with a "yeah, I understand, but what do you want to do about it?" To which feminism never seems to respond. The Sarkeesian videos are a great example of this. She points out massive problems, yet never even tries to go into the why or the how to fix. So many men are left to fill in the gaps, and oftentimes they are filled in with the bad stereotype of feminism which would say "because men are pigs, amirite?" I largely think the inability to speak on the male, "OK, let's fix this" level is because of the second topic: feminism just doesn't know what it wants or how to achieve it.

So, in the end feminism is a lot like Occupy and the Tea Party where it has a good set of ideals, but suffers from major institutional problems (different ones that OWS and the Tea Party have). Until it can fix these institutional problems, modern feminism as a movement will not acheive much. It takes a great deal of finesse and coordination to win the hearts and minds of the US, and right now feminism is seriously lacking in both.

At 9/11/14 01:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: because its our fault we left with a power vaccum in place and left irresponsibly?

First off, I dispute tha claim that we left irresponsibly, because if you really want to debate semanitcs, there was no way to leave responsibly, and while we're at it, there was no way to be there responsibly. Frnkly, the only way we could finish that whle debacle responsibly is to not go there in the first place.

So, I repeat a point I made earlier. If it was US that made it so shitty there, why the hell does anyone with half a brain think that WE are the logical solution?

I'm also surprised W isn't getting more flak over this. I mean, when it comes down to it HE is pretty singlehandedly (in a political sense) responsible for creating the situation with which ISIS thrived. We went in with no clear goals, accomplished nothing and have essentially made what was a stable, but tough, regime into little more than a return to the dark ages with rapes and public murders. We replaced Saddam with a group that makes Saddam look like friggen Abraham Lincoln. So again, why the hell are WE the ones to clean this up? It's not like we have a great track record with the region.

At 9/11/14 01:42 AM, Ranger2 wrote: I cannot say in confidence he is doing the best thing to defeat ISIS.

First off, why the hell is it our responsibility to defeat ISIS? They pose no threat to us. They pose no threat to our interest in the region (Israel).

The only reason I can think of is that this is 100% our fault. But when it comes to that, what about doing the same hing that caused this mess to fix it sounds logical to anyone.

My biggest question is, where the hell are, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia in this mess? This is THEIr problem not ours we should stop wasting our precious debt dollars and stop putting the lives of our soldiers at risk because the Arab League to too damn lazy to do their fucking work.

So, I repeat the first question: Why should we be stopping ISIS?

Having read the bill, I can pretty much say that this is much ado about nothing.

In no way is this an anti-protest bill, lest you think protestors should be able to overtly interfere with businesses and should be able to block entrances to businessess.

This does not keep protests from happening, nor does it keep protests from happening near businesses or targetting businesses. It's merely a restriction on protesting that isn't even needed in the US as there is no right to do anythig on private property.

Monkey may be acting like a dick about it, but he's still right. This is a non issue.

Overall, Ive decided that I cannot boycott burger king. I don't like the move, but with how my treatment works out, they present the best option for me.

I'm sitting in a chair from 10-2:30 meaning I can't eat lunch at a regular time. My treatment leaves me weaker as it is, and I tried to go home and eat afterward and that resulted in two bad options. Either I binge eat on crap because my body is so low on energy and bloodsugar, and then I eat dinner and feel sick all night, or I get pass-out-y because my blood sugar and my blood pressure both have dipped. So before my treatment, if I don't have a good usable leftover, I need to get a relatively heavy meal with protien that I can eat cleanly during my treatment. A Whopper plain fits the bill perfectly, and the BK is right next to my treatment center so I don't have to go out of the way to get it.

I'm trying to get make more meals tha have good leftovers, but the leftovers are split between me, my wife, and my dad, and about half the meals I make do not make good leftovers at all.

So while I boycott BK in spirit, life has forced me to shop there in reality.

At 9/9/14 10:11 AM, snickity wrote: Okay, good luck feeding on ramen... or good old healthy burgers.

I can't have ramen. Oddly, burgers, even fast food ones, are a nice simple healthy meal for me. They, when ordered plain, have high protein, relatively low sodium, relatively low phosphorous, and little to no potassium.

classic dinner: bread with spread costs about 50ct

No protien and very little vitamins. You can add protein with peanut butter, but that means even less vitamins and a low yield protien with high amounts of waste. Also, I can't have peanuts.

Soup. You don't need to be a chef for that, but depending on what you put in, that makes between 10ct-1$ per meal. and if you cook a little more than needed, you can freeze it for later use.

Extreme sodium and in order to have protien, you gotta add that $1-3 per serving of meat. Good source of vitamins though.

Again, soup is something I cannot eat.

spaghetti: max. 50ct per portion

To make it that cheap, again you're cutting out most of the protien and the vitamins. Your price means no meat and no vegetabes other than the sodium rich and nutrient lacking tomato sauces.

potato pancakes, "arme ritter", salad & bread, fried eggplant, selfmade pizza (tastes ALOT better than bought!), casserole etc etc.

The pancakes may be cheap, though I've noticed that even frozen pancakces and waffles are relatively expensive.

The casserole and pizza both suffer from the same issues as the spaghetti and soup. In order to make them cheap you have to remove most of the good stuff.

Your list is definitely healthier than the cheapest of fast foods and the uber cheap home meals, but they are still not that healthy. Sad thing is that a good quality source fo protienis expensive and there's no good way around it. There are ways around it, but they involve the equivalanet of eating a salt lick. High sodium is one of the most unhealthy parts of an American diet.

My diet makes it even more difficult as I can't have the cheaper substitutes as they contain high levels of sodium or have low output of protie compared to the phosphorous content. Many sauces and such also are loaded with potassium, meaning I cnnot have them. Finally, I am limited in my fluid intake to roughly 1 litre a day, meaning soups, even salt free soups, are out of the question.

You never really know how bad things are until you have to start avoiding certain ingredients and contents.

Don't get me wrong, i don't like how expenive healthy food is. Ever since I had to switch back to the super resrictive diet a month and a half ago my wife has been really bugging me about how much I spend on groceries. I try to cut it down, but the basics I must have, fresh butcher section meats, make that extremely difficult.

At 9/8/14 11:24 AM, snickity wrote: have you ever tried cooking? it seems not, because by being less of a lazy whutevr, you can have both: health and money.

I'd ask you the same. ause, apparently you think basic met is cheaper thn ramen, or mc and cheese. Too bad you're way off. 4 servings of chicken costs $8-9. Four servings of round beef (the heapest beef) costs $6. Pork comes in the cheapest at about $4 for four servings. Go anywhere beyond that and you're liable to pay well over $10 just for the meat.

Vegetables, for the most part are cheap, but they have a pathetically short shelf life. A head of lettuce is only really good for about 3 days. Carrots are the lognest at about a week. Fruit can last longer, but the cheapest fruit often runs at 4-5 times the cost, per tare weight, of vegetables.

Now, take a peek at the premade meals. Mac and cheese can run as cheap is $.25 per serving, meaning you can make 4 meals for four people for the price of 1 meal for four of pork. Ramen runs at even cheaper, coming down to in some cases less than $.10 per serving. Frozen pizza, even being much more expensive than those two, comes in at around 1-2 dollars per serving. A whole meal for the price of a component of a helthy meal.

Need I go on, or would you like to have another bite of your foot?

Trust me, having both been medically unable to work and my diet extrmely restricted (ruling out most, if not all the quick stuff at the gorcery store) I have spent a significant amount of time and effort trying to lower the costs of eating healthy.

actually, let's make a Venn diagram about the correlation of time, health and money and the resulting kind of food.

Time is irrelevant, because no one is saying that poor people don't have time to make food. It is true you pay extra for the expedience of fast food, but then again, you pay that for any food made for you. If a prson has the time to heat up a frozen pizza (roughly 30 minutes) they have time to make a healthy meal.

Also, when it comes down to it, healthy foods served quickly cost significantly more than the unhealthy foods. A salad at McDonalds or BK runs about $4. You can get two burgers and two sides of fries for that.