100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
"They" all say every president is going to declare martial law...whats new?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uhhh Darth Vader...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
what can we do as citizens
|
|
Things can change, but it's not going to happen just by wishing it were so. We are going to have to put our differences aside and work together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Death Row
|
|
An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Autism and Vacinations
Edited by
elanher
on
Sun 02/01/09 10:03 PM
|
|
Most people don't know it, but the mmr vaccine has never contained thimerosal/mercury. Anyway, mercury isn't the only toxin in vaccines. Aluminum can effect the body in similar ways as can many other ingredients. I know there are a few people that think autism may be genetic, but studies are now saying less than 1% of autism cases may have genetic causes. Almost every "expert" out there is leaning towards something triggering it. There can be triggers at birth too I'm sure. I can't accept that it's genetic when there are just so many things to look at. Did you know pitocin has mercury in it? I think I read it was close to 50% mercury. Most women are given pitocin when they go into labor. Maybe it's an allergic reaction that triggers autism. Eggs are one of the top allergens and it's a fact that all vaccines contain egg protein. How about milk? It's said you shouldn't give a baby milk before age one yet baby formula has milk in it. A lot of parents give their baby medications at a young age. Did you know tylenol lowers your glutathione levels which lowers your immune system? Having low levels of glutathione can also make it hard for your body to excrete metals. Many with autism had frequent ear infections as infants and were given large amounts of antibiotics. Overexposure to antibiotics can destroy microbes that keep candida in check. An overgrowth of candida can release toxins in the body, which can impair the central nervous system and the immune system. Aside from all of that... look at all the ****e being pumped into our air, chemicals in the food, etc.. etc... I don't think anything should be ruled out until it has actually been ruled out with facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Autism and Vacinations
|
|
New study says: Autism Linked to Environment California's sevenfold increase in autism is most likely due to environmental exposures, according to scientists. A new study advocates a nationwide shift in autism research to focus on environmental factors such as pesticides, viruses and chemicals in household products. Throughout the U.S., the numbers of autistic children have increased dramatically over the past 15 years. More than 3,000 new cases of autism were reported in California in 2006, compared with 205 in 1990. Many medical officials argued that the rise was due to changes in diagnoses or migration patterns rather than a real rise in the disorder. But the new study concludes that those factors cannot explain most of the increase in autism. Researchers analyzed 17 years of state data that tracks developmental disabilities. Migration to the state had no effect, and changes in how and when doctors diagnose the disorder can explain less than half of the increase. It is possible that a pregnant woman's exposure to chemical pollutants, particularly metals and pesticides, could be altering a developing baby's brain structure, triggering autism. Many parent groups also believe that childhood vaccines could be responsible. The whole article can be found at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment Thimerasol has been pulled from child vaccines, yet we are still seeing an increase in Autism rates . . . We must pay attention to the statistics and studies, but of course all with a keen eye for the details. Its always the details that allow (or lack of details) statistics to be twisted. I do not think vaccines have been the cause all along. We have been very poor stewards of our environments, and of our bodies. What we eat, how it is raised, what we wear, how we build, where we live, the air we breath. A single dose of a bad chemical is one thing, but a daily dose is a whole other ball park. I disagree with you on the part about.... Thimerasol has been pulled from child vaccines, yet we are still seeing an increase in Autism rates . . . I disagree because we don't know this to be true. I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I may not have been clear. While thimerosal was removed from most child vaccines the old stock is still being given out until it expires in late 2009 or until it runs out. This means many pediatricians are still giving it to their patients. You don't think these greedy aholes would just throw out the old stock and cut their losses do you? I don't... If rates have dropped around 2013 then I may agree.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Autism and Vacinations
|
|
New study says: Autism Linked to Environment
California's sevenfold increase in autism is most likely due to environmental exposures, according to scientists. A new study advocates a nationwide shift in autism research to focus on environmental factors such as pesticides, viruses and chemicals in household products. Throughout the U.S., the numbers of autistic children have increased dramatically over the past 15 years. More than 3,000 new cases of autism were reported in California in 2006, compared with 205 in 1990. Many medical officials argued that the rise was due to changes in diagnoses or migration patterns rather than a real rise in the disorder. But the new study concludes that those factors cannot explain most of the increase in autism. Researchers analyzed 17 years of state data that tracks developmental disabilities. Migration to the state had no effect, and changes in how and when doctors diagnose the disorder can explain less than half of the increase. It is possible that a pregnant woman's exposure to chemical pollutants, particularly metals and pesticides, could be altering a developing baby's brain structure, triggering autism. Many parent groups also believe that childhood vaccines could be responsible. The whole article can be found at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact is your employer is profiting off the work you perform, which means you are being exploited. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean it's not happening. Look up the meaning of the word... It is a hallmark of what you consider socialism. Maybe you just choose not to see it like many others.... And what is the meaning of the word? I suppose I shall look for a Marxist interpretation? But, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Why don't you show me the meaning of the word, O.K.? The rest of your response, I think you will agree, has meaning only if the meaning of the word "exploitation" agrees with your point. Nogames you are a joke...All you wish to do is argue semantics. I think it's a safe bet that we won't come to agreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was talking about libertarian socialism. If you look at what it is then your question is....irrelevant. Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aspire to anarchist forms of socialism, in that they wish to create a society "without" political, economic, or social hierarchies. It is voluntary socialism, so nothing would be imposed on anyone. It would be practiced only by those who believe in it and choose to practice it. If you wanted to keep practicing capitalism you would be free to. Of course you would face stiff competition because self managed workplaces would offer workers more. Since you have decided to quote Wikipedia, of all sources, allow me to point you back to the paragraph directly below the one you have quoted: "This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property, in order that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole." and,from an Overview: "As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."" in that same article, below, in Criticism: "Other libertarian philosophers (often referred to as liberals, in the classical sense) such as Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, stress that liberty is a state of affairs in which one is free from the unjustified aggression of others, and that any understanding of liberty must be grounded in natural rights – and especially property rights. Thus, they argue that absolute freedom for all is not a contradiction, and that the abolition of natural rights (including property rights) would, by definition, also be the abolition of liberty. As Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, put it, "The continued existence of society depends upon private property."" Now, you see, that the Libertarian Socialism can not allow me to have private property, or as they put it a "property not in possession". What this means is that Libertarian Socialists, not different than any other socialists, must use physical force to take such property away. How else are you going to take and use my property, which, to illustrate the conflict, is the means of production? I am not giving it up. Right there, just as Rothbard and Mises pointed out, lies the dirty truth that such a system affords no liberty. Further, if workers are the ones that are going to own the means of production, then who is going to take economic risk organizing the enterprise? If you think that workers themselves would, then you are sadly mistaken. For this is the whole reason that entrepreneurs own the means of production, since they are the ones creating them in the first place. There was a reason I have asked you the question I knew you won't be able to answer. There is no way to use the force without using it. Similarly, there is no way to insure that nobody owns means of production "unfairly", without an ability to take them away. Such a system, if ever created, will stagnate into shortages first, then erupt in violent redistributions, then allow itself to be converted to state Socialism. If you are looking for a system that is better than a state capitalism, then you should look for "individualist anarchism" for example (Rothbard), where there is a guaranty of freedom from state coercion. Actually, I didn't quote it from there...Whatever though. I never claimed to be an expert anyway. I guess you are though... It's obvious libertarian socialism is a pretty broad term. I'm looking at it from a voluntary angle. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that before. Are you missing that on purpose? I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. There are alternatives to using force. Have you ever heard of education? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We must be living in different countries. I work for a corporation, and do not feel exploited. My wage is constantly raised, in fact, it has been increased several times, and now stands about 8 times higher than what I have began with. Um, I do feel that my only value is what I am able to do. In other words, I only worth as I can produce. I have no problem with that. Is you experience different? Are you producing less than you could? Why? An oppresion based on sexual orientation is a hallmark of socialism. Just so that you be aware of it, in Soviet Union, the mere accusation of being gay would landed you in prison for years. Honestly, I do not see this happenning in capitalist countries. You write: "Everywhere you turn people are denied opportunities and treated unequal based on race, orientation, disability, sex, age, religion, non religion, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, and wealth status." Really? I must have been living in Saudi Arabia then.... The fact is your employer is profiting off the work you perform, which means you are being exploited. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean it's not happening. Look up the meaning of the word... It is a hallmark of what you consider socialism. Maybe you just choose not to see it like many others.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not feel forced. Please, do not hesitate, as I am really interested. If socialism is a good idea, you surely must be able to explain the terms, the meaning of which you do understand. It is really a simple question. In your socialism, will you let me to freely practice the capitalism? Or in other words, will you take my freedom away? On the other hand, if you not able to answer this tiny question, then this is O.K. I understand. I was talking about libertarian socialism. If you look at what it is then your question is....irrelevant. Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aspire to anarchist forms of socialism, in that they wish to create a society "without" political, economic, or social hierarchies. It is voluntary socialism, so nothing would be imposed on anyone. It would be practiced only by those who believe in it and choose to practice it. If you wanted to keep practicing capitalism you would be free to. Of course you would face stiff competition because self managed workplaces would offer workers more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The lies
|
|
I trust them as much as I trust The Onion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And... the answer to my question is.................? I first replied in this thread because it sort of irritates me that a lot of right wing people keep overusing terms they don't even understand the meaning of. It compelled me to share a little light of free thought. Thats what this forum is for, right? I'm not forcing anyone to think libertarian socialism is a good idea. You are free to think and do whatever you want. Would you explain that? Under capitalism workers are paid wages, the capitalist owners make profits from the products created by those who work. Exploitation is increased by by reducing wages, increasing hours, or getting rid of some workers while making the remaining workers work much harder. Workers are often made to feel that they cannot think and they are unintelligent. They are made to feel their only value is the job they do. Gay people do not have the same rights as straight people. They're even told to keep quiet about their orientation when they join the military. Racism in institutions provides billions of dollars in profits for capitalists every year due to the unequal pay people receive for work of comparable value. Everywhere you turn people are denied opportunities and treated unequal based on race, orientation, disability, sex, age, religion, non religion, national origin, political affiliation, marital status, and wealth status. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
elanher
on
Fri 01/23/09 11:38 AM
|
|
Socialism seems bad to those who don't really understand it. Most people only have a distorted view of it, that has been told to them by the capitalists. The only true form of socialism is libertarian socialism. We have only ever seen versions that still had an authoritarian elite system. Those versions are not socialism they are capitalism. I know it's doubtful that true socialism would ever work here, but the idea of it doesn't look so bad on paper to me anyway... No reason to scare people by mentioning advanced kinds of socialism... Simply tell me: In your Libertarian Socialism, will I be free to ignore the socialism, and live a capitalist life? I'm not trying to scare anyone with anything.  Capitalism is based upon oppression and exploitation, if thats what you prefer it's your choice. If I'm considered a socialist fine. voluntary socialism = anarchism. I like the sound of that actually. I believe in freedom of action and thought and I like the idea of people working together so everyone can prosper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism seems bad to those who don't really understand it. Most people only have a distorted view of it, that has been told to them by the capitalists. The only true form of socialism is libertarian socialism. We have only ever seen versions that still had an authoritarian elite system. Those versions are not socialism they are capitalism. I know it's doubtful that true socialism would ever work here, but the idea of it doesn't look so bad on paper to me anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Socilism has never been successful. Any encyclopedia will confirm that statment as fact. Americas economy is based on capitalism. Abandoning free market principles will never be sucessfull. Those who voted for Obama are Socialist,uninformed,or did so because of race. He has fooled many people. With the help of the drive by media who hate conservative values. Bush had trickle down economics. Obama has trickle up poverty. Please dont try to take away my freedom of speech. After 8 years of liberal Bush bashing, it is now my turn. What is it that makes Socialism so bad? What system has been shown to be successful? As long as people are deceived and as long as greed exists corruption will also exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since Obama considers himself a constitutional law expert he more than most people should understand that if the Bush Administration isn't held responsible for their crimes our legal system is nothing more than a bad joke. I suspected it was a joke anyway, but thats besides the point. He knows what he needs to do and if he doesn't he is no better than they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Horrible T.V. Advertisements
|
|
How about the dual action colon cleanse infomercial? Anyone seen it? I stopped on it because the main guy was so funny looking. He looked very greasy and he had a mustache that looked like it was painted on. Anyway, it was all about poop. At some point the guy starts talking about how he was examining his niece's bm in the toilet. He goes on about the shape and size of it. It's gross, but I hate gross...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
closing Guantanamo
|
|
I imagine most people are aware that Gitmo isn't the only torture prison out there. Call me what you want, but I think all of them should be shut down. If people are found guilty of crimes put them in regular prisons. Criminals are criminals, no need to discriminate.
How many of those torturous techniques used have done any good at Gitmo anyway? Only one detainee has been charged by the US the whole time. I'm not saying they are all innocent. I'm sure some of them are guilty of criminal acts, but the fact is theres no evidence to back it up. Without evidence they are innocent until proven guilty. You don't know how it all went down. Maybe some of those detainees were at the wrong place at the wrong time...some of them may have even been taken from there homes. Theres no way for us to know. I think there has been plenty of time to did up dirt on them if there was any. They need to go ahead and free them.... give them reparations and sanctuary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
kid rock.....
|
|
I liked him in Joe Dirt.
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
