I am all for hope and I understand there are positive uses. Any religious group has good people. In fact, I would suspect most people in most religions are good and decent folks. But religion also causes a lot of strife that we could do without.

To me getting rid of prejudice sounds a lot crazier than getting rid of economic inequality. In theory you can just mandate economic equality with a set of laws, although that never works. Getting rid of prejudice would call for rewiring the human brain. Otherwise you would need a Big Brotherish monitoring system…

I'd rather hang out with the rats than the people.

indeed they do! I loved my little ratties, although something tells me the rats you'd be hanging with post-apocolypse wouldn't be fancy well bred rats but rather dumpster diving size of cats rats...i'll pass on hanging with them.

Truly. The USA, like so many other governments, are functioning exactly as they were designed: to intentionally not work.

Hah, I was gonna say..has this person ever watched a zombie movie? People will split off into groups and carry their prejudice with them. It's just now, they can just kill whoever they don't like (if they're like, evil or just a real jerkoff.)

I can only imagine the amount of gun-toting redneck confederates who would…

Enough for two, so that's covered. Or to put it another way, I wouldn't hesitate to pluck the other one out, if it came to it.

I have great depth perception! We'd make a perfect team.

If it is pure, natural vanilla extract, it's not bad for you at all. It comes from a vanilla pod, a plant based material. Mmm. I like adding that as well. Good stuff, vanilla. The ice cream flavour has such a misunderstood reputation!

Two teaspoons for a medium mug, three for a larger mug. It doesn't make it taste like honey, exactly, just mellows the coffee and adds some sweetness to it. But it is easy on the system, not granular, and blends well.

The abstract (I don't have access to the full text, it's behind a pay wall) does not say that they adjusted for diabetes when arriving at the results this item cites for increased risk. All of the increased risk could be in diabetics, unless they adjusted for presence and absence of that condition. We already know…

I am on the other side of the sugar problem: salt.

Right there, second thing you said, before anybody else replied, but nobody read it.

My great grandma is 99 years old, she has never worried about, fitness, weight, or health. She's probably too busy hanging out with her friends and sisters, which are all in the 90+ club riddle me that one!?

Take it Joe:

Cancer risk is a combination of many factors, including environment and exposure. There's increasing evidence that sugar can play a role on carcinogenesis:

My diabetes is evidence enough.

Did this report remove overall calorie intake as a variable? Meaning, is a person who takes in 1,900 calories a day, 500 of which are from sugar, more at risk for cardiovascular disease than a person that takes in 1,900 calories a day with only 100 calories from added sugar? Also are people that take in more sugar…

Too much of anything is bad. All the articles and studies on different types of foods have the same conclusion.