placeholder

You sure about that? While humans may not have evolved to eat ultraprocessed foods and sugar, they certainly didn't evolve to be pure carnivores. In fact, genetic studies show that different human groups have adapted to different kinds of diets. As for vegetables having changed, what about livestock. You think that the animals raised today are the same as those that existed 100 years ago? You think that their diet is the same? That the fat content of their muscles is the same? The Evolution of Diet Some experts say modern humans should eat from a Stone Age menu. What's on it may surprise you. It’s true that hunter-gatherers around the world crave meat more than any other food and usually get around 30 percent of their annual calories from animals. But most also endure lean times when they eat less than a handful of meat each week. New studies suggest that more than a reliance on meat in ancient human diets fueled the brain’s expansion. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/#:~:text=It's true that hunter-gatherers,their annual calories from animals. Hunter-gatherers were mostly gatherers, says archaeologist Researchers reject ‘macho caveman’ stereotype after burial site evidence suggests a largely plant-based diet Early human hunter-gatherers ate mostly plants and vegetables, according to archeological findings that undermine the commonly held view that our ancestors lived on a high protein, meat-heavy diet. The evidence, from the remains of 24 individuals from two burial sites in the Peruvian Andes dating to between 9,000 and 6,500 years ago, suggests that wild potatoes and other root vegetables may have been a dominant source of nutrition before the shift to an agricultural lifestyle. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/24/hunter-gatherers-were-mostly-gatherers-says-archaeologist

What is this nonsense about the failure of the UK and France to liberate Poland? They declared war on Germany because it had invaded Poland. Are you unaware that France and the UK don't actually share any borders with Poland? How would you expect them to liberate Poland without going through Germany? As for your claim that Britain had no real means to fight. Are you forgetting that it had a Navy that crippled the Germany navy except for U-boats. And that the Navy was responsible for a highly effective blockade And that, in fact, the British army inflicted so much damage on the Italians in North Africa that Germany had to intervene on Italy's side?

What's that got to do with a living minimum wage?

Because Hitler could definitely be trusted. After all, he was a such a rational actor. What could be more sane than exterminating the Jews, who had done so much to advance German science and industry. And has been pointed out, when Germany launched its attack on the Benelux nations, Churchill wasn't Prime minister.

I've been meaning to ask you. Do you believe the Germans had a program to commit mass extermination of the Jews including but not limited to the use of poison gas in death camps? That approximately 6 million Jews were murdered in this way? And that millions of others were murdered similarly?

Churchill's racial beliefs, which were common at the time, did not advocate Mass extermination or call people of other races subhuman to justify said extermination.

Churchill may have been a beneficiary of the Empire but he didn't create it. It was a fete accompli. Hitler set out to create a nightmare ,of an empire by waging a war of extermination.

I think Harris should use a bit of Jiu-Jitsu on him. She should go along with his idea but insist let it be paid for by raising taxes on the rich. As polls show, even Republicans support raising taxes on the rich.

What you call her tenure as border czar is entirely imaginary. Harris aswas never delegated any responsibility for managing the border.

The paragraph cited called him a British lawyer, not a British-Israeli lawyer. And nowhere noted his past stance on the issue of alleged media bias.

Strange that the article didn't mention that Trevor Anderson, is a British Israeli lawyer. https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-the-british-israeli-lawyer-holding-the-bbc-to-account-1001463725 So why should we accept his assessment at face value?

For those of you wondering what goose tastes like, next time you're in Bangkok check out this restaurant in the city's Chinatown. Lao Tang Braised Goose Here are its coordinates; 13.739879430300464, 100.51090289550284 It's located in Yaowarat. I've eaten there several times. To me goose tastes like duck. To date, I haven't found any restaurants to serve me cat or dog.. Or, if they did, they didn't tell me about it..

Did you actually read what he wrote? You cherry picked the one sentence out of the entire piece. What's more, it's a piece that has Hanson in agreement with Trump's alleged self criticism. As though Trump was really given to self-reflection and not automatic denialism of any flaws in his speech or conduct throughout his political career. It was really an attempt to try and make Trump seem reasonable. And as for that... 'Yes, I'm angry': Trump admits he was furious at the debate and lists all the reasons why... including the 'lowlife' ABC moderators and 'migrants walking off with geese' 'People said that I was angry at the debate, angry,' he told a raucous crowd in Tucson, Arizona. 'I was angry, and yes, I am angry because she allowed 21 million illegal aliens invading our communities. Many of them are criminals.' Trump was clearly rattled by her attacks, baited into repeating a rightwing online rumor that illegal immigrants had been stealing and eating pets. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13843489/donald-trump-debate-rally-tucson-arizona.html He got baited by Harris claiming that his crowds were small and people left early. What a weird loon he is.

There is no doubt that Churchhill repeatedly denounced the Nazi's so called scientific racism. There is no doubt that he did not call Slavs, Romany, homosexuals, and Jews sub-humans. And what's crucial, he did not have a program to systematically exterminate tens of millions of people in the name of science. When did he ever call for the systematic extermination of a people because of his racial prejudices. Because of Churchill, hundreds of millions of Europeans were spared the nightmare of living their entire lives under Nazi rule. Maybe to you the prospect of living under Nazi rule wouldn't be a nightmare?

This comment hasn't aged well.

One thing we can all be sure of is that her post, which appeared almost 2 months after the assassination attempt, has nothing to do with the promotion of her new memoir, which will be for sale starting October 8 and is already being promoted. Clearly, she understand that the same savvy Trump supporters who bought shares in Trump Media, will in now way be persuaded to buy her book by this vague allegation. Given her past history, it's obvious to all that she is in no way a huckster.

Sure. He won but it wasn't by a big enough margin. It is to laugh.

Maybe in your alternative reality. On this version of Planet Earth, not so much Victor Davis Hanson: The Case For Trump In a forthcoming book, Victor Davis Hanson advises people to take a historical perspective—and not the media narrative—in evaluating the activities and policy outcomes of the Trump Administration on key issues such as judicial appointments, energy, economic growth, jobs, and foreign policy. https://www.hoover.org/research/victor-davis-hanson-case-trump Donald Trump 'set for victory' in Presidential election against 'Communist' Kamala Harris - Victor Davis Hanson Discussing the ABC debate on GBN America, historian Victor Davis Hanson claimed that the moderators "fact checked Trump four times" but "did not fact check Kamala once"... However, Hanson claimed that if American voters re-listen to the debate, Trump "won" because he "zeroed in on three important issues". Hanson explained: "One issue was that if she's such a candidate of change, why didn't she do anything when she was Vice President for three and a half years? https://www.gbnews.com/politics/us/donald-trump-victory-us-presidential-election-kamala-harris

Why would he care? He has declared very emphatically that he won.

As for his theory of Geometry Unity, which Weinstein characterized as a theory of everything, it looks like it's the work of a crank. Never published for peer review. So your evaluation of him as a nut job could be spot on. https://www.vice.com/en/article/eric-weinstein-says-he-solved-the-universes-mysteries-scientists-disagree/

And yet Churchill had close Jewish friends. Let me cite again this passage to you: Churchill was in Germany in 1932 doing some research on an ancestor of his. Someone offered to arrange for Churchill to meet Hitler. Churchill mentioned a few questions to ask Hitler in advance to prep for their meeting. I'll let Martin Gilbert take it from here... "Among them was the following question: “What is the sense of being against a man simply because of his birth? How can any man help how he is born?” This may seem a simple sentiment to us now, but how many people, distinguished people from Britain, the United States and other countries, who met or might have met Hitler, raised that question with him? So surprised, and possibly angered, was Hitler by this question that he declined to come to the hotel and see Churchill. FROM the moment that Hitler came to power, Churchill in his public speeches, and in his Parliamentary speeches, made it clear that the racial aspect of Nazism was a central concern. He always insisted on raising this issue, and pointing out the relevance to his listeners of the Nazi racial policies, and this he did again and again." https://winstonchurchill.org/the-life-of-churchill/war-leader/churchill-and-the-holocaust-the-possible-and-impossible/ Maybe this seems to you like sentiments that Hitler would share. Not so much to me. As for your prediction about what Hitler would and wouldn't have done...the man was an inveterate liar with an immense hunger for power. It seems dubious that he would have tolerated a British empire to exist. But you take a more benign view of Hitler's character.

But apparently unable or unwilling to put his thoughts on current events into writing.

Is this Weinstein character dyslexic or suffer from some other kind of neurological disability? Why can't he put what he wants to say in writing? Maybe because it's a lot more difficult to fact check and analyze arguments when they're spoken rather than when they're written?

Muslims ruled the mideast for over a millenia and in many regions Jews and Christians not only survived but thrived. Even in parts where they were treated poorly, they weren't put to death for not being Muslims. In fact Jews under Islam fared better than Jews in Christian Europe. Christians and Jews in the Balkans weren't persecuted by the Turks. In fact, under the Turks, Jews were allowed to own land and to farm. This had been denied them when Orthodox Christian kings and czars war in power. The populations in the Balkans remained majority Christian orthodox In areas where the Mughals ruled India,for most of their time in power, they were tolerant of Hindus even though Hindus are polytheists.

Why is it disingenuous? What's different about today?