Bush's Benghazis

The chicken shit Republicans who are bashing Obama and Hillary over Benghazi don't give a rat's ass about the people killed at our embassies. When you hear some Republican pedophile bashing Obama or Hillary over Benghazi tell them to go fuck themselves and to die of rectal cancer.

Republicans have an elephant for their symbol. It is said that elephants never forget but the boy buggering Republicans forgot about all the deaths of embassy staff in the 9 terror attacks on US embassies during the Bush years resulting in a grand total of 60 deaths.

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News Criminal Slime

Click the link and enjoy the cognitive dissonance://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-...

Bend over Neo CONs, Liars, Teabaggers This is Going To Take a While

Now for the rest of the fact enema:

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

http://thedailybanter.com/2013...

http://thedailybanter.com/2013...

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Benghazi Suspect Caught, Fox Sees Conspiracy & Insanity Ensues

Related: Why nearly ALL PEDOPHILES ARE REPUBLICANS click here.

Ted Cruz Lies Again.

Irrefutable Proof That Ted Cruz (R-TX) Is Congress' Biggest Liar!

Ted Cruz (T-TX) calls himself a Southern Baptist, so he should know the Ninth Commandment.

A full 54 percent of Ted Cruz's statements have been rated "false" or "pants on fire" by PolitiFact. Another 20 percent are only "half true." That's 74 percent of Cruz's statements failing the truth test.

We're used to politicians lying to us, of course. But the frequency of Cruz's lies is actually staggering. Compare Cruz's 74 percent lying rate with Rick Perry's 48 percent and John Cornyn's 56 percent. Cruz is in rarified with Michele Bachmann as one of this country's biggest political liars. Whenever Ted Cruz opens his mouth, there's a 3/4 chance he's lying.

Ted Cruz, America's biggest liar is lying again. This time you can do something about it.

“[Texas Sen.] Ted Cruz (R) criticized the push for a constitutional amendment on regulating campaign cash Tuesday, deriding ‘Fahrenheit 451 Democrats’ and contending the liberals these days want to ban books and movies.”
-- Huffington Post, 6/3/2014

The ridiculously over-the-top rhetoric coming from Senator Ted Cruz is almost unbelievable. Almost.

Cruz is saying outlandish things about our campaign finance reform efforts to distract people from the truth -- that this amendment would reverse many of the negative effects of Citizens United.

Magicians might call Cruz’s attempt to control the debate “misdirection.” I call it baloney.

Tell Senator Cruz and his criminal allies: We NEED campaign finance reform, not more stall tactics. Sign the petition right now.

Let’s get down to what’s really going on here. Stopping the flood of outside cash -- funneling from billionaires like the Koch brothers into our elections -- is not violating the First Amendment. And it’s got nothing to do with “banning” anyone’s reading material.

Senator Cruz is all worked up about this because he supports the Koch agenda. Just like the Koch brothers, he wants to see the U.S. Senate controlled by Tea Partiers who believe in that anti-middle class agenda.

The bottom line is this: Outside groups just passed the $100 million spending mark in the 2014 elections. Attack ads are blanketing televisions all across America.

Sign the petition to tell Ted Cruz and his allies -- we need campaign finance reform now. Add your name.

Stop the Internet Takeover By the 1%

I received the following communication from Alan Grayson so I am passing it on to everyone who likes a free and unfettered internet and free speech.

Dear Fat Bastardo, 

A lot of people think the internet is a free and open environment, where you can say what you want and visit, build, and use the sites and services you want. And it is. But that's only because the government protects us from the large cable and phone companies. These companies want to block, slow, or degrade services and sites that don't pay them money. This means that, absent government protection, any site or service might be slowed down and made unusable, if the owner won't or can't pay off the corporate bullies. 

Fat Bastardo's Op Ed: This is what corporate gangsters and Nazis do. They control free speech because freedom is a threat to them. When Jimmy Carter said that America is not longer a functioning democracy he was right. When Ron Paul called what we have now fascism he was also right. 

When President Obama ran for office, he promised to protect the internet from these kinds of predatory practices. But his Federal Communications Commission, chaired by an ex-cable lobbyist named Tom Wheeler, may allow an internet which discriminates against web sites and services. 

Fat Bastardo's Op Ed: Obama is like most people in Washington. He's merely and errand boy for the criminal elite. Maybe he has no choice. I mean look what they did to JFK and RFK and Lincoln. 

That's the bad news. 

Now here's the good news. 

Chairman Wheeler also says that he wants YOUR feedback before making this pivotal decision. I've set up a site where you can submit your comments to the FCC. 

FCCDoYourJob.com 

I've been in touch with the FCC over the past few months. In a letter to me, Chairman Wheeler acknowledged that the FCC has the legal authority to protect free speech on the internet. It's just about whether he wants to do so. So let's tell him to do exactly that. 

 FCCDoYourJob.com 
We're in this together. Let's ask the FCC to do what the President said it would. Let's ask the FCC to do its job. 

Let's ask them to protect free speech, freedom, and America. A better world is possible, and we can make that world happen. 

Courage, 

Alan Grayson 

P.S. Please share this on Facebook and Twitter, while you still can.

Nursing Home Abuse

One-third of Nursing Home Patients Suffer From Medical Errors

Medicare patients suffer from widespread medical mistakes at nursing homes

One-third of all Medicare patients treated at skilled nursing facilities suffered some form of harm from medication errors, medical mistakes or infections, according to a government investigation that raises red flags about the quality of America’s health care as the industry transitions to Obamacare.

The investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general found that 59 percent of the adverse patient events were preventable and that more than half required patients to be admitted to care at a hospital or other facility.

---

---

Numerous patients — about 1.5 percent of those exposed to harm — died as a result of the mistakes, the report found.

The adverse events are harmful to taxpayers as well, costing an estimated $2.8 billion a year in additional hospitalizations, the report found.

Nursing homes are the most common type of skilled nursing facilities or SNFs, which are a growing part of America’s medical system as the baby-boomer generation ages. President Obama’s health care law envisions them continuing to play an important role going forward, raising the stakes for the problems unmasked in the investigation.

“Because many of the events that we identified were preventable, our study confirms the need and opportunity for SNFs to significantly reduce the incidence of resident-harm events,” the inspector general concluded.

Investigators said 22 percent of Medicare patients developed serious medical problems as a result of their stay, many of which required hospitalization to treat.

The most common mistake investigators found had to do with medication, usually with nursing staff giving patients the wrong kind or wrong dosages, or patients having an allergic reaction to the meds.

Medicare, one of the largest government programs in terms of spending, has often drawn criticism from Capitol Hill lawmakers who say the program isn’t doing enough to combat waste or isn’t transparent.

“Taxpayers have a right to see how their dollars are being spent,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, a leading advocate for spending reform, last year. “There shouldn’t be a special exception for hard-earned dollars that happen to be spent through Medicare.”

Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, said at a committee hearing last year that the government must be mindful of the cost of the program and how much mistakes can not only hurt patients, but cost taxpayers.

“As more and more baby boomers retire and health care costs continue to rise, Medicare spending could reach $1 trillion by 2023,” he said.  “Reducing hospital readmissions will not only save the Medicare program billions, it will save beneficiaries from potential infection and further out-of-pocket expense.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said they are compiling lists of the most common medical mistakes, and preparing better training for doctors on how to avoid the mishaps.

“CMS fully concurs with [the inspector general] on the importance of identifying avoidable adverse events among nursing-home residents and improving the quality of life and care for nursing-home residents,” a response from the agency said.

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, will require nursing homes and similar facilities to report their safety records to federal watchdogs. The inspector general said it’s too soon to tell if this will have a noticeable impact on reducing medical mistakes.

In addition to the harm done to patients, inspectors said, the mistakes were a large financial burden on Medicare for having to pay for hospital treatment.

“Most of these residents died at hospitals rather than in the SNFs where the harm occurred, having been transferred back to the hospitals for higher-level treatment as a result of the event,” the inspector general said.

Hospital trips owning to mistakes by medical staff cost taxpayers $2.8 billion in a single year, according to the report. But, the inspector general warned, “the full costs associated with these events are likely greater than our estimate.”

The Liberal Mind and Brain vs The Conservative Mind and Brain

Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains

16 peer-reviewed studies show liberals and conservatives physiologically different

In the 16 peer-reviewed scientific studies summarized below, researchers found that liberals and conservatives have different brain structures, different physiological responses to stimuli, and activate different neural mechanisms when confronted with similar situations. Each entry below cites the source document, and a PDF of each study has been included. The studies are arranged from most recent to oldest. We included all the peer-reviewed studies on this subject that we could find. If you know about others, please contact us with details.

1. Conservatives spend more time looking at unpleasant images, and liberals spend more time looking at pleasant images. "We report evidence that individual-level variation in people's physiological and attentional responses to aversive and appetitive stimuli are correlated with broad political orientations. Specifically, we find that greater orientation to aversive stimuli tends to be associated with right-of-centre and greater orientation to appetitive (pleasing) stimuli with left-of-centre political inclinations." Michael D. Dodd, PhD, Amanda Balzer, PhD, Carly Jacobs, MA, Michael Gruszczynski, MA, Kevin B. Smith, PhD, and John R. Hibbing, PhD, "The Left Rolls with the Good; The Right Confronts the Bad. Physiology and Cognition in Politics,"  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Mar. 5, 2012

Fat Bastardo responds: This maybe why Republicans are the party of no and they like seeing unpleasant things like people suffering and living in poverty.

2. Reliance on quick, efficient, and "low effort" thought processes yields conservative ideologies, while effortful and deliberate reasoning yields liberal ideologies. "...[P]olitical conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology… low-effort thought might promote political conservatism because its concepts are easier to process, and processing fluency increases attitude endorsement. Four studies support our assertion that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism... Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural." Scott Eidelman, PhD, Christian S. Crandall, PhD, Jeffrey A. Goodman, PhD, and John C. Blanchar, "Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism,"  Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 2012

Fat Bastardo responds: Everyone knows simply by reading conservative arguments that conservatives are intellectually lazy and dishonest.

3. Conservatives react more strongly than liberals to disgusting images, such as a picture of someone eating worms. "People who believe they would be bothered by a range of hypothetical disgusting situations display an increased likelihood of displaying right-of-center rather than left-of-center political orientations… In this article, we demonstrate that individuals with marked involuntary physiological responses to disgusting images [measured by change in mean skin conductance], such as of a man eating a large mouthful of writhing worms, are more likely to self-identify as conservative and, especially, to oppose gay marriage than are individuals with more muted physiological responses to the same images." Kevin B. Smith, PhD, Douglas Oxley, PhD, Matthew V. Hibbing, PhD, John R. Alford, PhD, and John R. Hibbing, PhD, "Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left-Right Political Orientations,"  PLOS ONE, Oct. 19, 2011

Fat Bastardo responds:  We know that when it comes to doing unpleasant things like fighting a war, conservatives are chicken hawk and girly men.

4. Liberals have more tolerance to uncertainty (bigger anterior cingulate cortex), and conservatives have more sensitivity to fear (bigger right amygdala). "In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI [magnetic resonance imaging]. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala...                        ...[O]ur findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty. The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing. Individuals with a larger amygdala are more sensitive to fear, which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amagdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief systems... our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex [ACC] may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty and conflicts. Thus it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views." Ryota Kanai, PhD, Tom Feilden, Colin Firth, and Geraint Rees, PhD, "Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults,"  Current Biology, Apr. 7, 2011

Fat Bastardo responds: Again this goes to the fact that conservatives are chicken shit.

5. Conservatives have stronger motivations than liberals to preserve purity and cleanliness. "...[R]eminders of physical purity influence specific moral judgments regarding behaviors in the sexual domain as well as broad political attitudes... ...[E]nvironmental reminders of physical cleanliness shifted participants’ attitudes toward the conservative end of the political spectrum and altered their specific attitudes toward various moral acts... When taken together, these two sets of results point to the possibility that political orientation may be, in some measure, shaped by the strength of an individual’s motivation to avoid physical contamination and that resulting vigilance for threats to purity may serve to reinforce a politically conservative stance toward the world." Erik G. Helzer and David A. Pizarro, PhD, "Dirty Liberals! Reminders of Physical Cleanliness Influence Moral and Political Attitudes,"  Psychological Science, Mar. 18, 2011

Fat Bastardo responds: Psychologists call this anal retentive. When it comes to trashing the environment they have no problem littering and polluting.

6. Liberals follow the direction of eye movements better than conservatives. "In the present study, we examine whether gaze cue effects [the ability to follow the direction of another individual’s eye movements or gaze] are moderated by political temperament, given that those on the political right tend to be more supportive of individualism—and less likely to be influenced by others—than those on the left. We find standard gaze cuing effects across all subjects, but systematic differences in these effects by political temperament. Liberals exhibit a very large gaze cuing effect while conservatives show no such effect at various SOAs [stimulus onset asynchrony]... Perhaps conservatives are less likely to trust others meaning that they are also less likely to trust a gaze cue..." Michael D. Dodd, PhD, John R. Hibbing, PhD, and Kevin B. Smith, PhD, "The Politics of Attention: Gaze Cuing Effects Are Moderated by Political Temperament,"  Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, Jan. 2011

Fat Bastardo responds: Because conservatives a liar, pedophiles and less trust worthy they think that everyone else is like them.

7. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to interpret faces as threatening and expressing dominant emotions, while Democrats show greater emotional distress and lower life satisfaction. "Independent sample t-tests revealed group differences in the averaged threat interpretation scores of the 10 facial stimuli. Republican sympathizers were more likely to interpret the faces as signaling a threatening expression as compared to Democrat sympathizers. Group differences were also found for dominance perceptions, whereby Republican sympathizers were more likely to perceive the faces as expressing dominant emotions than were Democrat sympathizers... Collectively, when compared to Republican sympathizers, Democrat sympathizers showed greater psychological distress, more frequent histories of adverse life events such as interpersonal victimization experiences, fewer and less satisfying relationships, and lower perceptions of the trustworthiness of peers and intimate affiliates." Jacob M. Vigil, PhD, "Political Leanings Vary with Facial Expression Processing and Psychosocial Functioning,"  Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2010

Fat Bastardo responds: Again, they are a bunch of chicken shits.

8. Conservatives and liberals react similarly to positive incentives, but conservatives have greater sensitivity to negative stimuli. "Our findings suggest that conservatives are sensitive to avoidance motivation [motivation through negative stimuli], which produces 'inhibition' responses manifested in greater rigidity... Based on the studies' findings, we would not expect differences between liberals and conservatives in responding to positive stimuli or incentives (i.e., approach cues), but we would expect greater inhibitory reactions by conservatives in response to negative, avoidant cues. Self-regulation appears to provide a useful perspective for understanding how one's political views may affect categorization processes and, more broadly, the association between political conservatism and rigidity." Mindi S. Rock, PhD, and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, PhD, "Where Do We Draw Our Lines? Politics, Rigidity, and the Role of Self-Regulation,"  Social Psychological and Personality Science, Jan. 2010

Fat Bastardo responds: All Conservative understand is fear and fear of losing some money.

9. Conservatives have more activity in their dorsolateral prefrontal cortices, the part of the brain that activates for complex social evaluations. "The conservatism dimension, which corresponds to the liberal-to-conservative criterion, was associated with activity in the right DLPFC [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex]... In this study, we speculate that activity in the DLPFC may reflect a role of this region in deliberative decision-making in complex social evaluations... The observation that this region was increasingly activated by conservative beliefs could be explained by claiming that conservative statements require more complex social judgments marked by greater cognitive dissonance between self-interest and sense of fairness... [W]e showed that the representation of complex political beliefs relies on three fundamental dimensions, each reflected in distinctive patterns of neural activation: The degree of individualism of political beliefs was linearly associated with activation in the medial PFC [prefrontal cortex] and TPJ [temporoparietal junction], the degree of conservatism with activation in the DLPFC, and the degree of radicalism with activation in the ventral striatum and PC/P [posterior cingulate/precuneus]. Our findings support the interpretation that the political belief system depends on a set of social cognitive processes including those that enable a person to judge themselves and other people, make decisions in ambivalent social situations, and comprehend motivational and emotional states." Giovanna Zamboni, MD, Marta Gozzi, PhD, Frank Krueger, PhD, Jean-René Duhamel, PhD, Angela Sirigu, PhD, and Jordan Grafman, PhD, "Individualism, Conservatism, and Radicalism As Criteria for Processing Political Beliefs: A Parametric fMRI Study,"  Social Neuroscience, Sep. 2009

Fat Bastardo responds: This doesn't mean that they can make these evaluations. All it means is that they try.

10. Conservatism is focused on preventing negative outcomes, while liberalism is focused on advancing positive outcomes. "Political liberalism and conservatism differ in provide versus protect orientations, specifically providing for group members' welfare (political Left) and protecting the group from harm (political Right). These reflect the fundamental psychological distinction between approach and avoidance motivation. Conservatism is avoidance based; it is focused on preventing negative outcomes (e.g., societal losses) and seeks to regulate society via inhibition (restraints) in the interests of social order. Liberalism is approach based; it is focused on advancing positive outcomes (e.g., societal gains) and seeks to regulate society via activation (interventions) in the interests of social justice." Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, PhD, "To Provide or Protect: Motivational Bases of Political Liberalism and Conservatism,"  Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, Aug. 2009

Fat Bastardo responds: This shows that Conservative prefer to maintain the status quo.

11. Genetics influence political attitudes during early adulthood and beyond. "The present research attempts to characterize how the transmission of political orientations develops over the life course... [G]enetic influences on political attitudes are absent prior to young adulthood. During childhood and adolescence, individual differences in political attitudes are accounted for by a variety of environmental influences... However, at the point of early adulthood (in the early 20s), for those who left their parental home, there is evidence of a sizeable genetic influence on political attitudes which remains stable throughout adult life." Peter K. Hatemi, PhD, Carolyn L. Funk, PhD, Sarah E. Medland, PhD, Hermine M. Maes, PhD, Judy L. Silberg, PhD, Nicholas G. Martin, PhD, and Lindon J. Eaves, PhD, DSc, "Genetic and Environmental Transmission of Political Attitudes Over a Life Time,"  The Journal of Politics, July 21, 2009

12. Compared to liberals, conservatives are less open to new experiences and learn better from negative stimuli than positive stimuli. "In this study, the relations among political ideology, exploratory behavior, and the formation of attitudes toward novel stimuli were explored. Participants played a computer game that required learning whether these stimuli produced positive or negative outcomes. Learning was dependent on participants’ decisions to sample novel stimuli... Political ideology correlated with exploration during the game, with conservatives sampling fewer targets than liberals. Moreover, more conservative individuals exhibited a stronger learning asymmetry, such that they learned negative stimuli better than positive... Relative to liberals, politically conservative individuals pursued a more avoidant strategy to the game… The reluctance to explore that characterizes more politically conservative individuals may protect them from experiencing negative situations, for they are likely to restrict approach to known positives." Natalie J. Shook, PhD, and Russell H. Fazio, PhD, "Political Ideology, Exploration of Novel Stimuli, and Attitude Formation,"  Experimental Social Psychology, Apr. 3, 2009

Fat Bastardo responds: All these creeps understand is fear and punishment.

13. Conservatives tend to have a stronger reaction to threatening noises and images than liberals. "In a group of 46 adult participants with strong political beliefs, individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War. Thus, the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both external (outgroup) and internal (norm-violator) threats." Douglas R. Oxley, PhD, Kevin B. Smith, PhD, John R. Alford, PhD, Matthew V. Hibbing, PhD, Jennifer L. Miller, Mario Scalora, PhD, Peter K. Hatemi, PhD, and John R. Hibbing, PhD, "Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits,"  Science, Sep. 19, 2008

Fat Bastardo responds: Again... they are a bunch of cowards, wimps and crybabies.

14. Liberals are more open-minded and creative whereas conservatives are more orderly and better organized. "We obtained consistent and converging evidence that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are robust, replicable, and behaviorally significant, especially with respect to social (vs. economic) dimensions of ideology. In general, liberals are more open-minded, creative, curious, and novelty seeking, whereas conservatives are more orderly, conventional, and better organized... A special advantage of our final two studies is that they show personality differences between liberals and conservatives not only on self-report trait measures but also on unobtrusive, nonverbal measures of interaction style and behavioral residue.” Dana R. Carney, PhD, John T. Jost, PhD, Samuel D. Gosling, PhD, and Jeff Potter, "The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind,"  International Society of Political Psychology, Oct. 23, 2008

Fat Bastardo responds: Had it not not been for liberals man kind would be living in the stone age organizing stones.

15. When faced with a conflict, liberals are more likely than conservatives to alter their habitual response when cues indicate it is necessary. "Our results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a general mechanism related to cognitive control and self-regulation. Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts. At the behavioral level, conservatives were also more likely to make errors of commission. Although a liberal orientation was associated with better performance on the response-inhibition task examined here, conservatives would presumably perform better on tasks in which a more fixed response style is optimal." David M. Amodio, PhD, John T. Jost, PhD, Sarah L. Master, PhD, and Cindy M. Yee, PhD,"Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism,"  Nature Neuroscience, Sep. 9, 2007

Fat Bastardo responds: You know what they say... insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results.

16. Conservatives sleep more soundly and have more mundane dreams, while liberals sleep more restlessly and have a more  bizarre, active dream life. "Conservatives slept somewhat more soundly, with fewer remembered dreams. Liberals were more restless in their sleep and had a more active and varied dream life. In contrast to a previous study, liberals reported a somewhat greater proportion of bad dreams and nightmares. Consistent with earlier research, the dreams of conservatives were more mundane, whereas the dreams of liberals were more bizarre... Conservative men sleep a bit longer, with better quality sleep; they recall the fewest dreams, but have the most lucid awareness. Liberal women have the worst quality sleep, recall the greatest number and variety of dreams, and have the most dream references to homosexuality." Kelly Bulkeley, PhD, "Sleep and Dream patterns of Political Liberals and Conservatives,"  Dreaming, Sep. 2006

Study Says HFCS High Fructose Corn Syrup Does Not Cause Obesity

Study Says HFCS Does Not Cause Obesity

Once again gluttons are insulted. Gluttony is the sole cause of obesity so to give corn sugar the credit marginalizes all the eating we gluttons do. Fat girls, the biggest gluttony deniers, who can't handle the fat blame everything for the fact that they are fat. We work hard to be fat and WE deserve ALL the credit!

For years, high fructose corn syrup has been erroneously implicated as a prime suspect in the obesity epidemic. Inexact scientific reports and inaccurate media accounts have increased confusion about the sugar made from corn. New research proves otherwise.

A new study, presented on Saturday October 9, at the Obesity Society’s 28th Annual Scientific Meeting, further reinforces the facts about high fructose corn syrup. Results from the double-blind study revealed that fructose containing sweeteners (sugar, high fructose corn syrup) do not uniquely contribute to obesity when consumed as part of a healthy weight maintenance diet. The study also found that high fructose corn syrup no more contributes to caloric intake than table sugar (sucrose).

In the study, overweight or obese adults were placed on a 10-week eucaloric diet (an eucaloric diet provides your body with just the right number of calories necessary to maintain current body weight) which incorporated either high fructose corn syrup or sucrose-sweetened, low-fat milk. Participants’ consumption of low-fat milk accounted for between 10 to 20 percent of the daily allotted calories, representing typical levels of sweetener consumption. Study participants did not experience a change in body weight, percent of body fat, fat-mass, or percent of abdominal body fat. Additionally, there were no statistical differences between people given high fructose corn syrup and those given sucrose.

These results are meaningful for the food and beverage industry because they provide further scientific evidence that products containing high fructose corn syrup do not promote weight gain more than products containing sugar.

Bringing a Myth Down to Size

Over the past few years, there have been reports in the media that consumption of HFCS is linked to obesity. However, those in the scientific community, including the American Medical Association, have found that HFCS does not contribute to obesity any differently than sugar. Additionally, one of the earliest critics of HFCS, Barry Popkin, Ph.D., professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, has since publicly retracted his original position, stating, “We were wrong in our speculations on HFCS about their link to weight.”

 

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data since 2000 show that obesity and diabetes rates continued to climb even as per capita consumption of high fructose corn syrup measured by the U.S. Department of Agriculture essentially reversed direction and began a steady 12-year period of decline (see data). Around the world, obesity levels are also rising even though HFCS consumption is limited outside of the U.S. Refined sugar accounts for about 92 percent and HFCS accounts for about 8 percent of caloric sweeteners consumed worldwide.

 

What’s the cause of our rising weight gain? Obesity is a multifactoral problem blessing, but according to the CDC, eating  too many calories and not getting enough too much physical activity is the primary factor.

 

Obesity rates versus HFCS consumption

Source

1. FoodNavigator-USA.com, Fructose in the firing line, September 16, 2009.
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2012. Tables 51, 52 and 53 See column I, Per capita consumption (adjusted for loss) lb/yr. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Diabetes Surveillance System. Long-Term Trends in Diagnosed Diabetes. October 2011. CDC, National Center for Health Statistics. Prevalence of overweight, obesity and extreme obesity among adults: United States, trends 1960-62 through 2005-2006. December 2009. Flegal KM, et al. 2010. Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2008. JAMA 303:3. And Flegal KM, et al. 2012. Prevalence of Obesity and Trends in the Distribution of Body Mass Index Among US Adults, 1999-2010. JAMA 307:5. 
3. World Health Organization, Global Database on Body Mass Index, Country comparison – BMI adults % obese (>=30.0), Most recent. See also World Health Organization. March 2011. Obesity and overweight: Fact sheet No 311, and LMC International, Inc. 2012. Table 2: World Sugar & HFCS Consumption. Sweetener Analysis January 2012.
4. CDC. Causes and Consequences. April 2012.

 See more at: http://www.cornnaturally.com/hfcs-scientific-data/hfcs-and-obesity#sthash.KuCtGckU.dpuf

  

Most Corrupt Member Of Congress

I Googled "Most Corrupt Congressman" and not surprisingly it was a Florida Republican. Even by Republican standards CONgressman David Rivera is a scumbag. Florida breeds corruption and almost takes pride in corruption; after all the asshole voters elected Jeb Bush and Slick Rick Scott for their governor.

Rookie Rep. David Rivera (R-FL) is a popular guy in the law enforcement community.  Multiple agencies on both the state and federal level are actively investigating the Miami member for a whole host of shady schemes that have lined his personal pockets, enriched his friends and family, and shown a total disregard for the truth.  It’s no wonder Rep. Rivera has been named by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) as one of the Most Corrupt Members of Congress.  Click here to read the full report on Rep. Rivera.

Related: Michael Grimm another corrupt Republican Congressman.

Learn more at: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Related: Federal Lawyer Frank Abrams Blows the Lid Off Miami Corruption