Posted on 03/08/2015 7:17:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There’s no theory about it.
The chemical formula for fructose (fruit sugar) and glucose are the same...C6H12O6. Sucrose (table sugar) is essentially two molecules joined together C12H22O12.
Sugar does not have to “break down” and is ready to go into your bloodstream. Carbohydrates (starches) quickly turn into sugar upon contact with saliva.
Feel free to list specifics if you are so impassioned. How Walker proved such a horrible deal, with references... and they had better be true or you will be Viking Kittied forthwith. Be sure to include “performed better than promised” in the list. I trust the instincts of such a person better than a rigid agenda-meister.
Staying away from all sugar will improve your health.
There is, as always, a camp of people who will identify some nutrient as being demonic in itself because they find it personally easier to keep their diet under control by omitting it.
I wish every success to people consciously controlling their diets when instinct does not suffice to keep it sane. However the best key is just to do it, in any sane manner. There are regimes like Weight Watchers’ that forbid no item while requiring all items to be accounted for. And they work when pursued with determination.
Specifics of his GOPe establishment deviancy include endorsements by Wisconsin Chamber of Amnesty members that support amnesty. His support for a holiday celebrating Cesar Chavez. His widely circulated promises to implement a bill to send illegal invaders home, but then subsequently reneges on those promises. His anti-ethanol-mandate, now pro-ethanol-mandate. His flip-flopping to say the one 'politically correct' thing he hopes gets the votes. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Got it?
So knowing all this, an America with Cruz as President would be right for conservatives, and an America under Walker will not be good.
Well, if they consciously avoid HFCS (C6H12O6) they are probably cutting down on their total sugar (C6H12O6) intake.
To be consistent, they should probably avoid ALL fruit.
Fruit comes with a volume of water, and fiber and vitamins and minerals, that soft drinks don’t. Newer versions of Weight Watchers are fine with fresh and water packed fruit of almost all kinds and do not even count them.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a standard-sized navel orange contains 69 calories, 17.6 grams of carbohydrates and 11.9 grams of sugar.
For nutrients, I stick with fish, meats and vegetables. For carbs, I have an occasional IPA or Scotch.
The minimum blend remains at E25; in a pinch, they’re allowed to go down to E18...
That’s interesting.
I hadn’t seen anything but what other have said Walker said.
Walker doesn’t support ethanol, that’s what Walker said according to what you posted, but he does support ethanol according to Cruz supporters.
Help me out here; Who to believe, what Walker actually said, or what Cruz supporters say he said?
C'mon, do I really need to search my ping list for my posting that shows his radio press release from 2006 showing his opposition to the ethanol mandate?
My point is to show his hypocrisy, his weather-vaning spinning when it comes to issues he feels are only important that day to attract votes.
When were the words in post 32 from?
Reading what you posted (I’m assuming it’s from this week?), he’s still against mandates.
I believe Walker said that on March 7, 2015. Is this what you were asking? It sounds like he's for mandates.
That isn’t what I was asking.
My question seems simple, what am I doing wrong?
In post 32, up thread.
You posted words you said Walker spoke.
You didn’t specify when he said them.
Therefore, I asked my question, which is this;
When did he say the words you referenced in that post?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.