great quotes!

In reply to this comment by HistNerd:
I'll give you the *wtf
It's amazing, people who follow faith make it easier on themselves when they fabricate their own 'glorious' history.

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." -John Adams

"The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." - John Adams

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." -Thomas Jefferson

"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."- Thomas Paine

And, I may not know everything about Christianity, but wasn't that stuff about Israel being the chosen land with the chosen people pretty much made null and void with the New Testament?

what happened to thsoe people mentioned ? was there a falling out or did they just quit participating?

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Congrats to Videosift!

A small shout out to all those who are missed! a few names - benjee, NickyP, gwaan, michie, LadyBug, SnakePlissken, Daphne, mauz15, plastiquemonkey, rickegee, thecosmicshame, gluonium, theo47, sfjocko, NTB, westy, firefly, maudlin and joemawlma.

These guys made the site thrive in terms of submissions and commentary! Sorry if I forgot anyone!

your avatar is AWESOME !

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
The cat is just going along with it to build a false sense of security into the squirrel. Then one day the pane of glass is going to be missing and kitty will have a tasty snack!

you encounter any of this stuff while you were in ?

http://blog.videosift.com/video/Hazards-of-Depleted-Uranium-Contamination-Training-DU-Video

thank you, thank you, thank you.

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
^Exactly. He wants a theocracy. He's an idiot, and he scares me. I'm saying this as a Christian.
I mean, whatever happened to church and state?

Not that there aren't good morals to be had, but you don't need to be Christian to have them.

i totally agree. thanks for posting !

In reply to this comment by Bleedingsnowman:
I think Bush and Rumpsfeld were a little to sure in their prediction. Just a little. Why should I believe them now? Because I'm scared?

People seem to think that Iran is nothing but a bunch religious zealots living in huts and riding camels. On the contrary, they are a very metropolitan people living in a highly industrialized nation. We could never walk on Iran because they have a sophisticated military with a highly developed air force.

The Iraq blowback was not because of fundamentalism, but that's a convenient excuse for both sides: invader and subjugated. What would you do if you were invaded tomorrow? What would you do if your house and family were destroyed for reasons you didn't understand. Imagine you were 16. You damn sure wouldn't stand there - without any money - and try to rebuild a smoldering heap of rubble so you can live in it alone. But there always going to be someone there to hand you a gun or teach you how to lay road spikes. And it's guaranteed that he or she would remind you that we can once again be "one nation under god."

Iran would never lay itself down. Iraq was already crippled when the U.S. invaded and look what's happened there. When there's a will there's a way. Invading Iran would destroy the U.S.

THANK YOU ! it has been updated

Q

In reply to this comment by Fedquip:
Good Video, here is a playlist embed if you wish
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4E5C33A68EBB4E73

In reply to this comment by qruel:
more on VOTER CAGING

Kansas GOP Chair Sends Email Boasting of Voter Caging
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/26/kansas-gop-chair-sends-email-boasting-of-voter-caging/

Raging Caging
What the heck is vote caging, and why should we care?
http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/

Voter Caging & Housing Works
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/video.html

Greg Palast on Rove and Timothy Griffin
http://www.gregpalast.com/rfk-rove-and-roves-brain-should-be-in-jail-not-in-office/

you seen this ?

http://crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=14116&sid=41581ad3483a01fc9f719fa6f93f3509

I didn't want to crowd that thread with an offshoot conversation.
So I'm a little confused. you wrote that "there are most certainly dangers and side-effects to vaccines".

How did you come to this conclusion ?
I would assume that you read or researched something of high enough quality of scientific nature as to warrant that belief.

If so, We are "essentialy" saying the same thing. But, "Most" people have not heard that there are dangers and side-effects to vaccines. "Most" people parrot the view that vaccines are absolutely safe and effective (note the use of the word absolutely) thus leading some in power to try and force vaccinations on those who do not want them. Seriously, this is the USA, there should be no forced vaccinations much less jailtime and fines)

there had to be concrete evidence that persuaded you to have that view.
please tell me more.

I will be the first to admit that it is very time consuming and hard to sift the wheat from the chaff in terms of credible information. As an example look at this article

http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases/pr1031flu.htm

(at first glance I could see why someone would buy into the cdc's assertions, but then other scientist who are more critical looked at not only the data but how that data was obtained) So, who does one believe ? Well initially most everyone in this country would believe the CDC, those who follow these types of issue further might become exposed to the critical review and admonishment of the cdc study and then make up their own mind with more complete information.

Nothing wrong with that right ? I mean isn't that how science is suppose to play out ?

I too dislike websites that speak out against global warming, 9/11, evolution, HIV causing AIDS. They seem too far out on the fringe, conspiratorial and from the little I've seen and read they do not base their assertions on science or reason. The global warming in particular because of the mass evidence of collusion between industry and the ANTI global warming voices.

That being said. The reason my stance is the way it is on Fluoride and Vaccines boils down to this... Collusion (and the implications of it)

So how is one supposed to "trust" what the government (or industry) asserts about the safety and efficacy of vaccines ? This is similar to you being skeptical of anti-vaccination sources. Even more outlandish collusion can be found in the book EVIDENCE OF HARM, by David Kirby http://www.evidenceofharm.com/reviews.htm

Also, That Rolling Stone article DEADLY IMMUNITY, I keep refering to is damning for a number of reasons. The main one being evidence of massive collusion (AGAIN!) between government and the vaccine industry. Please read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I would seriously be interested in seeing if any of the evidence provided disturbs you.

let me touch quickly on the subject of Fluoride. I've quoted scientists, government agencies, scientific studies and scientific journals to backup my claims. The lynchpin of the pro-fluoride arguement was flawed from the begining. Chrostopher Bryson, who wrote The Fluoride Deception. outlines (with original 1st hand documents) collusion between government agencies and industry scientists to "fix" the results when the whole fluoridation issue first started to get pushed on the U.S. population.
feel free to download and peruse the book for yourself
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/books/Christopher_Bryson-The-Fluoride-Deception_history-water-flouridation-and-why-its-bad-for-your-health.pd
f


Thanks for your time, patience and willingness to discuss this issue with me.

QRUEL


In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Which is something the both of you have not acknowledged
oops. I'll be more clear.

There are most certainly dangers and side-effects to vaccines.

But, they are worth the risk in my opinion and in the opinion of most biomedical scientist and medical doctors. MOST vaccines are effective if administered and boosted properly.
I just think that sites like novaccine.com are determined to stop vaccination in a strikingly similar way to most other activism websites, be them poopooing global warming, 9/11, evolution, or whatever. Heck, I found a site that said HIV doesn't cause AIDS and it argued it with equal passion. Don't get me started on that.
and kindly forgive my temper tantrum if you would be so kind.

do you remember where you poasted that list about why waterboarding (torture) was ineffective ?? I'd like to psot it to this thread

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Whose more guilty then? Those who started the programs? Or those who allowed them to go on?

The answer is all of them.

Fucking cowards.

If you are refering to Romney, then yes, unfortunately people believe his inaccurate, illogical speeches, which is why some of us are posting the other side of the issues. unfortunately the "mormons" in the thread have derailed the thread and are focusing on whether or not christians think mormons are christians and not address the inaccuracies in Romneys speech

If you are refering to me then yes, people really buy this ! :-)

In reply to this comment by ImaMonster:
This guy is so full of crap! Do people really buy this??

thanks for taking the personal attack out of your comment

In reply to this comment by rembar:
You think I'm not going to laugh when you rant, but I really am. Respond to the papers I have cited above and to my comments on them, and show their conclusions to be incorrect. I can't take you seriously until then.

are you saying...

There is no science that says fluoride is detrimental to our health and if there is science that says it, it should not be considered science." (science in the broad sense as in studies, journals, books, scientific literature)

if that is the case, then, when I show you scientific studies that do show there are detrimental affects of fluoride, will you then acknowledge that this should be filed under SCIENCE ?

are you really so beholden to the view that there is no scientific literature out there that has shown "any" detrimental affects of fluoride ?

funny I always thought science was suppossed to be open to new data. you seem to have closed your mind.

also, I do not have to take your bait and "prove" anything. All I have to show is that there have been fluoride studies produced that have found adverse health affects.

if you like to see some then visit this link.

http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

the studies and literature quote in my first post can all be found referenced correctly at that link.

In reply to this comment by rembar:
You think I'm not going to laugh when you rant, but I really am. Respond to the papers I have cited above and to my comments on them, and show their conclusions to be incorrect. I can't take you seriously until then.

Hey Gorgonheap

at the request of Constitutional Patriot could you post your response back intot he thread for people

thanks

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Actually my father is a agricultural scientist. One who has been in the industry for over 20 years now. He has a PhD in Phytopathology. Every one of his jobs has required him to test the effects of herbicides and pesticides on plats, animals, ground soil, and water systems.

In his years of research he has found that the only reason ecosystems become contaminated is because of improper use on the part of the farmer. Some have a philosophy of "if a little is good then a lot must be better". However when chemicals are properly used they are 100% biodegradable with no harmful effects on ecosystems.

I don't know about fertilizer that much. But having worked on farms for most all of my adolescent years I can see how they can be harmful. Coinciding all the protective gear I had to wear before fertilizing a field.

I appreciate your research and open mind about all of this. I need to do some more myself.

In reply to this comment by qruel:
Hey gorgonheap.

Thank you for posting about the use of hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6). Do you realize that these are byproducts of the fertilizer industry and are classified as toxic and can contain lead ?

read this... it it insightful and disturbing

http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm

______________________________________

I think your views represent what "most" people think about fluoride. But I would urge you to take a little deeper look as the claim that it "helps" the body are decieving.

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.

____________________________________________


you also talk about dosage, which is a very important aspect. id you mean to say that "It can have negative effects but the dosage and use of it can turn it from a helpful substance to a harmful one." you wrote the opposite in your post.

If dose alone makes the poison, here is something to think about. Fluoride is found in almost everything. pesticides, fumigants, water, food, air.
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/flouride/USDA_National_Fluoride_Database_of_Beverages_Foods_12-2005.pdf
_____________________________________________


you mentioned "Some studies suggest that fluoridation is associated with a median decline in the number of children with cavities of 12.5%, and a median decline of 2.25 teeth with cavities."

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).

LOLx10. trust me i know. but that is seriously how far out a new computer is.
I've been messing with the sandbox editor that ships with crysis and it rocks. I can't wait for that new card (as hindered as it may be)

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
AGP!?!? Olllllllld!

In reply to this comment by qruel:
^LOL DAMNIT and i was on such a roll

i had submitted this a night or two ago and people either loved it or hated it. i discard to post what I thought was a mind boggling horrific hip hop music video by a chick in Iowa.

http://www.videosift.com/video/WHAT-THE-FUCK-INDEED-Wick-wicky-wicky-wack

i just ordered my Radeon X1950 Pro 512 MB Viper AGP Graphics Card (i know, i know...agp = old and bottleneck). but it'll be quite awhile before the opportunity for a new computer

crysis here i come !



In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
No. Just no. No hard feelings, Q man.