Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

You use this term a lot.  I'm not really sure what you mean by it?  Please explain, if you're so inclined?  I'm not being combative, I really have no idea what you mean.

Good question. 

I started saying it more because some friends (not burnout Californians, but young products of schools like UGA) started saying it. And being around college sports a lot, I realized an incredible amount of the experience of college sports is tied up in vibes. Fanbases go into convulsions in the offseason over a few recruits. Coaches can be fired because the boosters are put in a shit enough mood to pony up the money. Sometimes regimes change because in a donor-heavy sport, things aren't exciting enough.

And through the last couple years, I started realizing that certain parts of the experience of sports involve attaching something factual to a vibe, even if that factual thing isn't true. We've all heard complaints about running up the middle, run-run-pass and running into 8- or 9-man boxes. And people would complain about these, then I would go watch the film and they were often not the case. But when you tell someone that, they don't care. They're trying to describe a kind of feeling/vibe.

And I realized arguing the reality was pointless. People felt how they felt, and feeling was part of the experience. 

And as such, the laments about chemicals in our food making us fat (of vaccines causing autism) strike me as more being about feelings than being super rooted in fact. There's a kernel or truth in there, but it aligns best with how we feel, so we go whole hog into it. 

Just dropping in from a crazy stretch at work to agree with our resident Chemistry PhD: 50 years ago, we were awash with all kinds of nasty chemicals that have subsequently been banned, or at least substantially limited in their use.

MDT's interjection--Is it, or is it not the case that new chemicals have been introduced in a variety of areas/products since chemicals from 50 years ago were banned?  Not being combative, I'm genuinely asking.  Because I would be surprised if the answer were "no." 

And to agree with ELA re pretty much everything he's said in the last couple of pages of this. I, too, have an autistic kid, who falls into what used to be called Aspergers Syndrome. My brother, too. And I would bet, dollars to donuts, at least one, if not both of my parents. All brilliant in their own way. And ELA nailed it--50 (and 40 and 30) years ago, everyone just thought of my brother as weird. Now his nuerologist has no trouble saying he's autistic. He's coped fine, but it would have been a lot better if he had received additional supports--and understanding from those around him--when he was a kid.

I feel very comfortable in saying that if a Democratic President had nominated Kennedy to be our HHS, the Republican freak out would be as big, if not bigger. Deep down, almost all of you know that.

I call foul on the bolded part to a degree.  The implication behind the idea that Republicans would freak out if ideas came with a "D" attached to them, is that it follows that they support things because there's an "R" attached to it.  There is a significant population for whom this is true, but I believe you're overlooking the most relevant aspect of the November election, which is that a growing % of the voting base now distrusts both traditional parties and voted for perceived outsiders they believe will try something different.  This is the bulk of Trump's popularity with the MAGA crowd....they're tired of the McConnell-Republicans and everything they've been up to for the last 30 years (I think the term is RINO), and they certainly aren't down with the Democratic party which went off a leftist cliff some ten(ish) years ago.  They're looking for something new, and being legitimately open to a guy like RFKJ, and not coerced into it, is a small part of that.

If your theory were wholly correct, Republicans/MAGA would be fine with the union-friendly Sec/Labor nominee, because Trump told them to be.  But so many of them are not.  They don't like the pick and are holding their nose over it.  For this crowd, it wouldn't make sense to say "A Republican nominated Kennedy (and let's be real, Trump is not a traditional Republican, either in his personal history or his social views) so y'all are fine with him, and if a Democrat had nominated him, you'd hate him."  This Republican voting segment doesn't necessarily like his policies in other areas right now, with a giant "Republican" Trump-flavored endorsement, but they do think he has something to say in the HHS arena worth hearing, so it's not just about going with the party line.   

I reiterate....to a great degree I think you're correct.  But it would be fallacious to overlook the very real growing segment of people who, for better or worse, are trying to evaluate a thing not based on the party that pushed it, but on the strength of its merits. 

And as such, the laments about chemicals in our food making us fat (of vaccines causing autism) strike me as more being about feelings than being super rooted in fact. There's a kernel or truth in there, but it aligns best with how we feel, so we go whole hog into it.

as far as our food goes- there is plenty of evidence for our food making us fat and unhealthy. the main culprit is probably high fructose corn syrup- which is in just about everything you get off the supermarket shelves from ketchup to bread. 60 minutes did an excellent piece on this like 15 years ago- back when it was actually still doing journalism. yeah sure, a little bit of sugar here or there might not hurt- but when it is in LITERALLY fucking everything you buy at the grocery store- well it all adds up- and to very bad health outcomes.

and yes, a smorgasbord of chemicals involved in food/food production are making Americans very unhealthy. there are over 10,000 chemicals approved for use in food/food production in the US. in the EU it's a few hundred. And buddy, their food >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our food and their health >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our health. anyone who says otherwise has never been over there for extended periods of time and has no clue what they are talking about.

in the EU for companies to use any chemical in food/food production- they have to prove it is safe before they are given permission to use it. there is no such requirement in the US, it is basically the complete opposite stance- companies are allowed to use virtually any chemical they want in food/food production until that chemical is proven unsafe. make it make sense.

as far as vaccines being linked to autism- I'm sorry but there has never been reliable study on the topic in either direction. the entire medical study scene is a filthy racket which is wholly greased and hijacked by major pharmaceutical companies. the truth is I don't think we really know what causes autism. why that's such a hard thing for anyone to admit, I don't know.

Autism rates before the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed in 1986- which by law gave pharmaceutical companies complete immunity shield from downstream liability for any vaccine they make- were 1 in 2,500 children. Roughly 30 years after that law came to pass autism rates were 1 in 36 children. That sure is an incredible coincidence. And yes, we are better at diagnosing autism now- but that fact alone is not going to single-handedly account for a nearly TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY fold increase in diagnosed cases in just 30 years. Something else is going on. Clearly. And the largest pharmaceutical companies on planet earth lie, falsify data, rig studies, pay journals off, bribe regulators after the fact by giving them cushy jobs and fat paychecks once they leave government for drugs they know they can get in trouble/sued for......now imagine what they do with a product they know they are legally immune from liability for.....lulz.

Just being on some list alone is not evidence of any crime.

One predictable constant in life is that "we" prefer to blame others for our ills.  Talk about obesity, and folks blame "processed food" and food companies.  

Poor people eat what they can afford.
Crap food is cheap.

This isn't complicated.

To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to supporting.....
the egg lobby