Bryan

Just because people relapse and return to their addictive behaviour, does not in any way mean that weight loss is not possible. A lot more people do it than the article tries to imply. You might as well try to claim that it's not possible to quit drinking coffee. If you go back to your old behaviours, yeah, you're going to get your old results, that part is not news.

Take your own advice and go do that research. Start here: http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140908/civic-center/bratton-opposes-law-make-chokeholds-illegal

Choke holds are NOT illegal. They are legally performed all over the world everyday, including in New York. It's not even illegal for the police to use, it's just against department policy. A cop who does perform one during an arrest will not be criminally charged for it, but he might face internal discipline.

As usual, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I'm very aware of the difference between blood and air chokes, and that is precisely the point. If Garner's arteries were being squeezed, he would have already been unconscious. He would not have continued to shout "I can't breathe" 11 times after the hold was released. If a choke hold had been severe enough to cause someone to die long after the hold was released, it would have to have been an air choke, which would be evident in the damage to the trachea -- which the autopsy did NOT find. Yeah, the people are fighting back, it's full 100% resistance when we spar and compete. Yes, it IS difficult to choke someone. Even when it looks like you do have a choke applied, most of the time you don't. They way you can tell the person is being choked is they will be sleeping inside of a couple of seconds if you don't let go. I'm sure that Royler Gracie is going to get a chuckle out of hearing that an anonymous keyboard warrior thinks he's running a McDojo though. That is a good one.

They are an important life skill for self-defense, and an effective submission to win jiu-jitsu tournaments. They are by far the least likely thing to cause anyone medical issues out of anything we teach and train. If the person being choked doesn't tap right away, they just go to sleep. They wake up a few seconds later, and they're fine. Tackling someone to the ground or using shoulder locks and similar arm restraints is far more likely to result in someone needing medical attention.

The poll didn't ask "should Israel exist?" It didn't ask if Israel's existence is right or wrong, nor did it ask if Israeli Jews should be relocated. It merely asked if it had a right to exist. Those are very different questions.

We can add that to the list of things you don't understand about this case: http://abcnews.go.com/US/nypd-officer-indicted-eric-garner-choke-hold-death/story?id=27341079

You do need it, because you keep saying that you clearly see a chokehold, when that is not what is happening in that video. You don't even know the difference between what is and is not a chokehold. You don't know how a person responds when they are being choked, and you aren't even paying enough attention to see who is holding Garner in what manner at the time that he starts complaining that he can't breathe.

You mean the coroner who ruled that there was no damage to Garner's throat? He died of positional asphyxia -- his chest and neck were compressed when the other police officers were kneeling on him trying to get him to stop resisting and let them put the cuffs on him, AFTER the hold around his head and shoulders had already been released. It is obvious. You don't even have a basic understanding of what you're trying to discuss. Do yourself a favour and take the 40 minutes to watch the video I linked to earlier. Unlike the medical examiner and the media, those guys ARE experts on chokeholds. Did the police have sufficient reason to be arresting Garner? It doesn't look like it. Was their use of force excessive for the situation? It certainly does appear that way. Did the officers on the scene directly contribute to Garner's death? Most likely. Was he killed by a chokehold, though? There is no evidence to support that at all.

It absolutely was not. Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. You need to stop spouting off nonsense when you have no idea what you are talking about. The video very clearly shows that Garner was not being choked. At the point of the video where Garner starts repeating "I can't breathe" Officer Pantaleo had already let go of him.

Absolutely. There is a small range by which different people process/absorb/pass/burn/or store the nutrients they eat, but it's physically impossible for a person to be clinically obese unless they are eating a LOT of food. I agree with this in principle, the problem is, there is no need for anyone to smoke, drink, do drugs, but everyone MUST eat. How do you tailor such taxes so that they only affect those who overdo it? Give people a ration card that tracks the food they buy, and kicks in additional levies once they surpass a certain threshold?

The 2 yr old's arms might not be long enough to get the right grips, but we train 4 yr olds to do it. Once they get the hold sunk in, yes, even a full grown adult is going to sleep within a couple of seconds. My daughter has been able to do it effectively since she was 8. She has choked out people literally twice her size. Not everyone. Only people who don't know what they are talking about, so they just repeat what they've been told.

No it doesn't. If that was a chokehold, Garner would have been unconscious, instead of repeatedly yelling "I can't breathe". People are using the term chokehold because they don't know what they are talking about. They haven't got the training or experience to understand the difference. People go to sleep, they don't start yelling that they can't breathe. It really is that simple: if someone can keep telling you that they can't breathe, that means that they are NOT being choked.

Does the coroner train chokeholds on a daily basis? Do you? Because I do.

You are speaking from a position of ignorance. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and are grasping at anything to satisfy your confirmation bias. The reason anyone, including the coroner, would even imply that chokehold killed Eric Garner is strictly and specifically because they do not know what they are talking about with respect to chokeholds.

"Neck compressions". Your ignorance is showing the more you protest. A chokehold will leave the person being choked completely unconscious long before there is any actual damage. Garner did not go unconscious, and was still yelling "I can't breathe" long after he had been released. If you can say that you can't breathe, by definition that means that you can.

The pathologist hired by the family has no idea what he's talking about. The autopsy says so: http://nypost.com/2014/07/19/man-in-chokehold-death-had-no-throat-damage-autopsy/'> Man in chokehold death had no throat damage: autopsySo did the grand jury: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/03/eric-garner-grand-jury-declines-indict-nypd-chokehold-death And so do the world's foremost experts on chokeholds: (This one is a long watch, but it's important if you want to be informed as to what a chokehold is and is not, instead of making judgements based on emotions)

It appears to be a choke hold only to people who have no idea what a choke hold is. It really is unfortunate that Garner was so unhealthy that he had a heart attack. It's a terrible thing for his family that he's dead. The police did not choke him though.

The reporting surrounding that incident was ridiculous, and so full of inaccuracies. The video does not support the notion that he was choked by the officers at all. If he can say "I can't breathe", then by definition he can. Besides that, if the officer who had his arm around Mr. Garner's neck actually was applying a choke, then Garner would have been unconscious (and fully compliant) within seconds. I train these types of restraints every day -- if the choke is being applied tightly enough that the person being "choked" is even remotely concerned about their safety, they will already be sleeping inside of a second.

Happens all over the country. In my riding, there's no chance of you ever getting elected unless you are a native french speaker. That is FAR more important than what your platform is, or what party you represent. And no, I don't live in Quebec either.

^Absolutely^

I'd much rather see an actual conservative who moves towards the centre, than a centrist who moves left from there. The starting point matters. We used to have two Liberal parties, just choose red or blue. Right now, at least one of those choices is conservative-ish.

We don't pay any such premiums in Manitoba, but I would welcome it if it were based on lifestyle related outcomes. You can't go by BMI though, that is a ridiculously inaccurate measurement. People in peak physical condition will usually have fairly high BMIs because of how dense muscle is (they generally weight more than people who are larger/fatter than they are). One thing I really like is something a few local doctors have done here: refusing to see/treat patients who do not follow their advice. One gave all his patients a set time period to quit smoking. Once the deadline passed, those still smoking had to go find another doctor. I'd love to see that same approach with obesity: lose weight, or don't come back.

That argument hinges on whether or not you would have bought those items anyway.

The problem with targeting the food source is, you're relying on government to even know what is or is not bad for you, and for them to put that knowledge into policy. Public Health policy, and dietary guidelines in particular have little basis in reality at the best of times. McDonald's food is pretty gross, so I eat there as seldom as possible, BUT if I wanted to I could easily eat there three meals a day and LOSE weight.