If you see the world in terms of Left & Right, you really aren’t seeing the world

[Parker2112]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/you-vs-corporations/



Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.
I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.
For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.
The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.
This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing.
Consider:

• Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;
• The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;
• Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;
• PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;
• The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.
• DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit;
• Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;
• The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)
None of these are Democrat/Republican (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/democrat-or-republican/) conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues.
For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.
What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.
How about government spending? The past two presidents are regarded as representative of the Left Right paradigm – yet they each spent excessively, sponsored unfunded tax cuts, plowed money into military adventures and ran enormous deficits. Does Left Right really make a difference when it comes to deficits and fiscal responsibility? (Apparently not).
What does it mean when we can no longer distinguish between the actions of the left and the right? If that dynamic no longer accurately distinguishes what occurs, why are so many of our policy debates framed in Left/Right terms?
In many ways, American society is increasingly less married to this dynamic: Party Affiliation continues to fall, approval of Congress is at record lows, and voter participation hovers at very low rates.
There is some pushback already taking place against the concentration of corporate power: Mainstream corporate media has been increasingly replaced with user created content – YouTube and Blogs are increasingly important to news consumers (especially younger users). Independent voters are an increasingly larger share of the US electorate. And I suspect that much of the pushback against the Elizabeth Warren’s concept of a Financial Consumer Protection Agency plays directly into this Corporate vs. Individual fight.
But the battle lines between the two groups have barely been drawn. I expect this fight will define American politics over the next decade.
Keynes vs Hayek? Friedman vs Krugman? Those are the wrong intellectual debates. Its you vs. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, You vs. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO. And you are losing . . .
~~~
This short commentary was conceived not to be an exhaustive research, but rather, to stimulate debate. There are many more examples and discussions we can have about this, and I hope readers do so in comments.
But my bottom line is this: If you see the world in terms of Left & Right, you really aren’t seeing the world at all . . .

[rjv]

see the problem here is the most of the posters on this board who like this post will be considered to be on the left and those that will disagree will be considered to be on the right.

but it's pretty spot on.

[CosmicCowboy]

No real for/against as far as I'm concerned. It was just a radical oversimplification of the issues.

[boutons_deux]

"corporate vs. individual issues"

... and there's no way to fix that. America is .... ?

[Parker2112]

It was just a radical oversimplification....

Actually, every time I read one of the repug reposts from Fox news, I tend to think the exact same thing...what a blind oversimplification.

Fox's tendency to blame most everything on Obama, muslims, liberals, illegals, Nancy Pelosi and terrorists doesnt even come close to telling the story of our demise.

How fucked are we until blind supporters of both the left/right wake up and stop insisting on the party line on every issue.

The Right contingent on this board consists of the some of the most blindly-loyal brainwashed posters on ST politics forum.

[Cry Havoc]

Right and left is a bad lens with which to view the world through, as is a giant fluoride conspiracy put on by the government and the ultra rich to poison it's inhabitants.

Just sayin'

[LnGrrrR]

Eh, I see the distinction shifting along other lines, mostly, whether or not preemptive military attack is justified, and whether or not you approve of strong executive power. If you agree with those things above, you're part of the new conservative block. If you disagree, you're a liberal/progressive.

[Parker2112]

Right and left is a bad lens with which to view the world through, as is a giant fluoride conspiracy put on by the government and the ultra rich to poison it's inhabitants.

Just sayin'

I can tell by this post you glazed over most of the posts in that thread and refused to read any of the links. I never mentioned a conspiracy by the ultra elite in that thread.

What I mentioned was lobbying by the aluminum industry to convince municipalities to dose the public on a grand scale. Pretty consistent with this OP.

Seems you have no trouble putting together straw conspiracies of your own.

[Parker2112]

Right and left is a bad lens with which to view the world through, as is a giant fluoride conspiracy put on by the government and the ultra rich to poison it's inhabitants.

Just sayin'

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HOMUfz5TaKk/S7rD7JKmkcI/AAAAAAAAAhE/RWQS4iyBcw0/s1600/FailCheers.jpg

[Cry Havoc]

I can tell by this post you glazed over most of the posts in that thread and refused to read any of the links. I never mentioned a conspiracy by the ultra elite in that thread.

What I mentioned was lobbying by the aluminum industry to convince municipalities to dose the public on a grand scale. Pretty consistent with this OP.

Seems you have no trouble putting together straw conspiracies of your own.

You're right, my bad, I just make a habit of mistaking one massive crackpot theory for other. Oops.

[Parker2112]

You're right, my bad, I just make a habit of mistaking one massive crackpot theory for other. Oops.

because corps never do insidious shit through lobbyists...something so far fetched would have to be a massive crackpot theory!

[Parker2112]

again, here's your cup o' fail:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_crPBCZok0RE/Sobh3IM9p0I/AAAAAAAALjA/Y4moY94iU8s/s400/fail-owned-cup-holder-fail0000.jpg

[Winehole23]

The Right contingent on this board consists of the some of the most blindly-loyal brainwashed posters on ST politics forum.So the problem isn't ideological division like you suggested to start with... as usual, one side of the political spectrum gets most of the blame for gullibility/intellectual dishonesty.

You pick sides like everyone else, Parker.

[Winehole23]

:lol at how quickly your bs disintegrated this time, Parker. What's even funnier is the way you exposed yourself.

[Parker2112]

So the problem isn't ideological division like you suggested to start with... as usual, one side of the political spectrum gets most of the blame for gullibility/intellectual dishonesty.

You pick sides like everyone else, Parker.

There is a segment of the conservative right that I completely respect and identify with on many issues...just not the Fox news cronies, and just not the wing nuts in this forum.

[Parker2112]

:lol at how quickly your bs disintegrated this time, Parker. What's even funnier is the way you exposed yourself.

whats funnier is how you come gunning for me at every turn. :toast

[Parker2112]

:lol at how quickly your bs disintegrated this time, Parker.

I suppose that makes this a fail also...

heres your sign...
http://www.ihasafail.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ihasafail-fail-sign.jpg

[Winehole23]

whats funnier is how you come gunning for me at every turn. :toastYou earn it every time.

[Stringer_Bell]

again, here's your cup o' fail:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_crPBCZok0RE/Sobh3IM9p0I/AAAAAAAALjA/Y4moY94iU8s/s400/fail-owned-cup-holder-fail0000.jpg

This thread has given me a craving for Burger King.

and cellulite. :drool:

[Cry Havoc]

whats funnier is how you come gunning for me at every turn. :toast

What's funnier is that your primary method to making a rational point is to post a huge jpeg of a sign saying FAIL, since we all know you can't actually do it with your words and intellectual discourse.

[Parker2112]

What's funnier is that your primary method to making a rational point is to post a huge jpeg of a sign saying FAIL, since we all know you can't actually do it with your words and intellectual discourse.

The signs only come out when the opposition sucks, ie. opposition lies, misrepresents, fails to read, makes conclusory assumptions, resorts to racist arguments, etc.

If you see funny pics, consider the argument to be on auto-pilot and my interest to be at near-zero.

smilies also.

[Parker2112]

What's funnier is that your primary method to making a rational point is to post a huge jpeg of a sign saying FAIL, since we all know you can't actually do it with your words and intellectual discourse.

lol @ you talking about "rational points" and starting this entire exchange with a complete misrep of 13 pages of thread.

Heres a pic of a cat:
http://mattsanders.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/butter.jpg

[Cry Havoc]

UU
The signs only come out when the opposition sucks, ie. opposition lies, misrepresents, fails to read, makes conclusory assumptions, resorts to racist arguments, etc.

If you see funny pics, consider the argument to be on auto-pilot and my interest to be at near-zero.

smilies also.

How marvelously this works out, then! I have no interest in hearing your ridiculous, nearly fact-free manifestos masquerading as conspiracy theories, and you have no desire to provide any supporting evidence! You have utterly failed to convince/infect a single poster on spurstalk with your special brand of crazy, and failed to convince even one person that you are worth having discourse with (except at your expense). I wonder if you enjoyed wasting so much of your breath and time posting on people who do nothing laugh at your inanity? You want this to be a courtroom, and thats fine, because the burden of proof is something that you are bearing miserably.

For all the pictures of fail you're posting, you are likely an expert in it now. Do continue to troll/spam/derail your own thread though, its amusing that you don't understand that you're owning yourself.

[Parker2112]

...ridiculous, nearly fact-free manifestos masquerading as conspiracy theories, and you have no desire to provide any supporting evidence..


:lol:downspin::lol

:sleep

:flag:

:greedy

[Parker2112]

UU

You have utterly failed to convince/infect a single poster on spurstalk with your special brand of crazy....

:lol:depressed:hat:wakeup

...2000 views..


:wakeup:whine:married::depressed

[Parker2112]

because the burden of proof is something that you are bearing miserably.

:wow:wow
thread titled "What About Fluoride?"...
:hat:whine

[Parker2112]

UU
Do continue to troll/spam/derail your own thread though, its amusing that you don't understand that you're owning yourself.

:king:bang
fluoride thread had pics AND 2000 views...
:lobt:

[Parker2112]

:married:!

[Parker2112]

you and Winehole are terrible at this. You would think that on such a ridiculous conspiracy theory, one of you might score at least a point...

If I am the guy with the ball, you two could each play this dude:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UKWH5zpEQ3Y/SxA3pgyvWBI/AAAAAAAAUNs/YUNYOMUPNKQ/s1600/tomlinsonstiffarm.jpg

[Cry Havoc]

:lol:depressed:hat:wakeup

...2000 views..


:wakeup:whine:married::depressed

w3qFdbUEq5s

2,457,000 views.

Have a nice day. :toast

[Parker2112]

w3qFdbUEq5s

2,457,000 views.

Have a nice day. :toast

next time you come in flailing shots at the OP, try reading the posts of the person you attack before throwing out generic worthless attacks based on less than 0.

Better luck next time :sucker

:lol

[Parker2112]

Funny how much opposition this thread gets. Makes sense since most folks are completely invested in the tribal approach to politics.

Not smart though, because partisan division is what's killing the country.

Still though, everyone knows where the country is heading, and no one really gives a flying fuck...at least not enough to step out of the security of their respective political clan's cover.

We are FU+UF people.

[Cry Havoc]

Funny how much opposition this thread gets. Makes sense since most folks are completely invested in the tribal approach to politics.

Actually it was more like this:

Me: Snarky comment that isn't even meant to be serious.

You: RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.

[Parker2112]

Actually it was more like this:

Me: Snarky comment that isn't even meant to be serious.

You: RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE.

It aint always about you, Jr.

[LnGrrrR]

Parker, you sure like to claim victory quickly and often. I guess that's easy when you don't really take the time to counter your opponent's evidence by discounting it out-of-hand.

[Winehole23]

That's what he says we've done. Pobrecito.

[Winehole23]

We're careless, we don't read, we don't tackle the issues.

[Winehole23]

http://www.phrank.com/images/sh/season2/bnoc03.jpg

Maybe Parker got tired of getting form tackled.

[LnGrrrR]

That's what he says we've done. Pobrecito.

Did you know that paranoia is thought of as a more advanced form of projection?

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/12/paranoia-and-projection.html

Johah Goldberg (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_12_26_corner-archive.asp#048980)is right about how paranoids think. Paranoia is a more "advanced" form of a psychological defense known as "projection". I have discussed this elsewhere (http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/psychiatry-101-defense-mechanisms.html), but it bears repeating since it is so common.


And some fun info from Wikipedia on paranoid personality disorder:


Those with the condition are hypersensitive, are easily slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions to validate their prejudicial ideas or biases.



Psychosocial theories implicate projection of negative internal feelings and parental modeling.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder#cite_note-Bienenfeld-1)





The World Health Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization)'s ICD-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10) lists paranoid personality disorder as (F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD-10_Chapter_F)60.0 (http://apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/?gf60.htm+f600)) Paranoid personality disorder.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder#cite_note-paranoid-2)

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs;
tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;
suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous;
a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation;
recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;
tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude;
preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large.
Includes:

expansive paranoid, fanatic, querulant and sensitive paranoid personality (disorder)
Excludes:

delusional disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder)
schizophrenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia)
It is a requirement of ICD-10 that a diagnosis of any specific personality disorder also satisfies a set of general personality disorder criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder#General_diagnostic_criteria_2 )


Of course, all attempts at armchair psychological diagnoses should be taken with a mountain of salt. :lol

[Cry Havoc]

It aint always about you, Jr.

Sorry, were you responding to my ghost?


Of course, all attempts at armchair psychological diagnoses should be taken with a mountain of salt. :lol[/SIZE]

I sense strongly worded jpegs headed your way! Take cover! :lol

[Winehole23]

For Parker any vagrant suggestion is validated by waving your hands at "credible" sources from a great distance, so he may try to tackle your obviously facetious diagnosis as if it were a sincere one.

(En garde, Doctor LNGR! :lol)

[Wild Cobra]

"corporate vs. individual issues"

... and there's no way to fix that. America is .... ?
Maybe if we got government out of most this, it wouldn't be the same problems?

[Wild Cobra]

What I mentioned was lobbying by the aluminum industry to convince municipalities to dose the public on a grand scale.
For what purpose?

[Wild Cobra]

There is a segment of the conservative right that I completely respect and identify with on many issues...just not the Fox news cronies, and just not the wing nuts in this forum.
Then they might still be lefties, just not as far left as you.

What policies and who are you referring to?

[Wild Cobra]

you and Winehole are terrible at this. You would think that on such a ridiculous conspiracy theory, one of you might score at least a point...

If I am the guy with the ball, you two could each play this dude:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UKWH5zpEQ3Y/SxA3pgyvWBI/AAAAAAAAUNs/YUNYOMUPNKQ/s1600/tomlinsonstiffarm.jpg
I consider them some of the more thoughtful and intelligent posters here, and I usually disagree with them.

[Winehole23]

What a nice thing to say, WC.

Thanks. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

Funny how much opposition this thread gets. Makes sense since most folks are completely invested in the tribal approach to politics.

Not smart though, because partisan division is what's killing the country.

Still though, everyone knows where the country is heading, and no one really gives a flying fuck...at least not enough to step out of the security of their respective political clan's cover.

We are FU+UF people.
Parker. You can find the "me" attitude in most everyone. Corporations and rich people buy in their way. That is why it becomes a political issue, because our politicians can be bought. I want politicians who do right by the people, and not give either corporations or people money that belongs to others. To me, that is a conservative and libertarian viewpoint. We all have our stances, but I see the OP as a fail. It still,breaks down to various ideologies. Authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. Conservatism vs. liberalism. Then on top of that, we all have a few traits opposite of our primary ones.

[Wild Cobra]

What a nice thing to say, WC.

Thanks. :toast
YW.

Just because I get pissed at you, doesn't mean I don't respect you.

[Winehole23]

Back at you, WC. As a faithful and dutiful correspondent, there's no one who around here who tops you. No one.

[Winehole23]

Even though what you say in your ever faithful replies sometimes drives me crazy. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

For Parker any vagrant suggestion is validated by waving your hands at "credible" sources from a great distance, so he may try to tackle your obviously facetious diagnosis as if it were a sincere one.

(En garde, Doctor LNGR! :lol)

:lol

I can't help it; my mother is a psychologist, and went to school while my brother and I were in high school/middle school. I can't tell you how many times I had to answer some variation of, "So, you say you're feeling this (fill in the blank). Why do you think that is?"

Eventually my mother stopped when my brother and I started parroting her whenever she yelled at us. "Mother, you say you're upset with us when my brother and I don't get our homework done. Why is this?" "Mom, you said you're feeling frustrated by the amount of traffic. Why do you feel that way?" :lmao

[Winehole23]

:lol

[Cry Havoc]

I consider them some of the more thoughtful and intelligent posters here, and I usually disagree with them.

:wow

I had to read that twice to make sure who it was from. :lol

Thanks WC. Always have to be on my toes when having a debate with you. :toast

[Winehole23]

If I might add, another WC hallmark is self-disclosure.

Very few posters here come across as truly candid, but WC will tell you what he really thinks every day.

I really respect that, even though I really disagree with him a lot.

[Blake]

you and Winehole are terrible at this. You would think that on such a ridiculous conspiracy theory, one of you might score at least a point...

If I am the guy with the ball, you two could each play this dude:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UKWH5zpEQ3Y/SxA3pgyvWBI/AAAAAAAAUNs/YUNYOMUPNKQ/s1600/tomlinsonstiffarm.jpg

what cool calf tats LT has:

http://www.sdnn.com/files/2010/06/LaDainian-Tomlinson-Jets-tattoo-400x239.jpg
http://larrybrownsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/lt-chargers-tattoo-2-260x208.jpg

the only thing cooler would be spur calf tats.

[Wild Cobra]

:wow

I had to read that twice to make sure who it was from. :lol

Thanks WC. Always have to be on my toes when having a debate with you. :toast

Just because I'm an ass at times doesn't mean I'm always like that.

[Parker2112]

Parker, you sure like to claim victory quickly and often. I guess that's easy when you don't really take the time to counter your opponent's evidence by discounting it out-of-hand.

Do me a favor please.

Point to a single peice of evidence offered up by WH or Blake. Just one.

That goes for anyone.

Now, before we wait entirely too long for a response, let me answer that for you: you cant. They offered no evidence. Ha.

I'll take the W then! :king

[Parker2112]

http://www.phrank.com/images/sh/season2/bnoc03.jpg

Maybe Parker got tired of getting form tackled.

When you start addressing: the studies cited, the investigation you didnt know anything about (starting at post 1), the aluminum industry's influence, then you might have a shot at racking up a point here and there.

Until then, all the "you're a conspiracy nut so I win" talk makes you an easy mark and leaves you with the goose egg.

[Parker2112]

Did you know that paranoia is thought of as a more advanced form of projection?

http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2004/12/paranoia-and-projection.html


And some fun info from Wikipedia on paranoid personality disorder:








Of course, all attempts at armchair psychological diagnoses should be taken with a mountain of salt. :lol

Here we go again. Way to tackle the issues, lil pardner.

[Winehole23]

The OP deplores partisanship as a cognitive defect, then you use it as a platform to bash "the right". Comedy gold.

[Parker2112]

For Parker any vagrant suggestion is validated by waving your hands at "credible" sources ...



have you even begun to discredit them?

Let me answer that: :king.

[Parker2112]

I consider them some of the more thoughtful and intelligent posters here, and I usually disagree with them.

Many thought LD was going to be one of the best to ever play. We all know that story.

[Parker2112]

The OP deplores partisanship as a cognitive defect, then you use it as a platform to bash "the right". Comedy gold.

The OP deplores partisanship, then the follow up points out the most extreme example.

You suck at this.

[Winehole23]

have you even begun to discredit them?
Have you stopped waving your hands?

[Winehole23]

You suck at this.Eh, mebbe, but your stubborn refusal to own the obvious flaws of your own presentation does you no credit.

[Parker2112]

Have you stopped waving your hands?

thats what this is about. My sarcasm has struck a nerve. Its not about fluoride at all, is it? :lol

[Parker2112]

Eh, mebbe, but your stubborn refusal to own the obvious flaws of your own presentation does you no credit.

I readily admit I dont do the research. I dont verify sources. Thats why I dont claim to make solid arguments. Thats why I phrase my shit with "?"'s all the time. Yes Im lazy, and short on time for real research. And I usually assume someone like you or chump will have dealt with a given issue for yourselves and point out the solid take.

HOWEVER, That hasnt precluded me from swatting down the name calling in this thread, as it is trying to be passed off as half-hearted attempt at rhetoric.

[Winehole23]

HOWEVER, That hasnt precluded me from swatting down the name calling in this thread, as it is trying to be passed off as half-hearted attempt at rhetoric.You're against name-calling. That's a rich one.

[Parker2112]

You're against name-calling. That's a rich one. :lol

going from thread to thread with new attacks on old threads, I mean.

[Winehole23]

Oh, you turned over a new leaf when you started this one?

[Winehole23]

I beg your pardon, maestro. Please overlook my crass insinuation.

[Parker2112]

You're against name-calling. That's a rich one.

I dont care about name-calling. But dont try to pass it off as argument and expect anything but ownership.

One strawman after another? Really? Is that your best shot here?

WH, I know you better than this man. Really.

[Winehole23]

I dont care about name-calling. But dont try to pass it off as argument and expect anything but ownership.
I wasn't passing it off as anything but criticism of you. Seems you can't take it.

Pobrecito.

[Winehole23]

It can't be very easy to be so vain and so full of shit at the same time.

[Parker2112]

I wasn't passing it off as anything but criticism of you. Seems you can't take it.

Pobrecito.

Did I show signs of cracking? :lol

[Winehole23]

I readily admit I dont do the research. I dont verify sources. Thats why I dont claim to make solid arguments... Yes Im lazy, and short on time for real research. And I usually assume someone like you or chump will have dealt with a given issue for yourselves and point out the solid take.So you just throw shit on the wall without taking any responsibility for it. Thought so.

Thanks for the frank admission :tu

[Parker2112]

I can't be very easy to be so vain and so full of shit at the same time.

you say vain. I say trying to push you from name calling to argument.

but tell the truth here...there is no argument to be had. the topic is beneath you. move on already.

[Winehole23]

To tell the truth here, you're just fucking your own day like you always do. It's amusing to watch.

[Winehole23]

When challenged on obvious bs just say, I was challenging you to think!

[Winehole23]

Or:

I'm too lazy and ignorant to post a real take. Someone else please post one so I can learn. Thanks!

[Parker2112]

To tell the truth here, you're just fucking your own day like you always do. It's amusing to watch.

and yours is ready-made fucked?

[Winehole23]

Ah, no. That usually takes a bit of work.

[Parker2112]

Ah, no.

I cant tell. Name calling, playing make-out with WC, and being uncontrollably compelled to round up the final say aint exactly the shining example of "How to spend a great day."

We only got so many you know.

[Parker2112]

btw, next time you guys go for blatant slobber-lock, get a room. :)

[Winehole23]

Ah, there's the Parker we know and love.

[Winehole23]

Just gaybait em.

[Parker2112]

Ah, there's the Parker we know and love.

:toast

[Parker2112]

Just gaybait em.

you wanted the best you got the best.
http://www.allfunnypictures.com/images2/shortshorts.jpg

[Parker2112]

When challenged on obvious bs just say, I was challenging you to think!


Or:

I'm too lazy and ignorant to post a real take. Someone else please post one so I can learn. Thanks!

what a dick. and I dont mean that in a homoerotic way.

[Winehole23]

I have no nice things to say about you. Sorry.

[Winehole23]

Your bs sucks and your personality doesn't really make up for it.

[Winehole23]

Result: fuck your day.

[Winehole23]

what a dick. and I dont mean that in a homoerotic way.Just rephrasing your own comment, hoss. You showed your ass.

[Wild Cobra]

I cant tell. Name calling, playing make-out with WC, and being uncontrollably compelled to round up the final say aint exactly the shining example of "How to spend a great day."

We only got so many you know.

LOL...

Parker, if you only knew how much of a joke you appear to us on both the left and right side of the isle.

[boutons_deux]

The lower 95% refuse to see America through a "class" lens, nor to see that America is engaged in class/civil warfare, but that is the most accurate view.

American class is not the European style class of "ancient royalty/aristocracy/inherited class vs the rest", but the Haves vs HaveNots. There's nothing ancient about America other than the slaughtered, marginalized aborigines.

Income Gap Widens: Census Finds Record Gap Between Rich And Poor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/income-gap-widens-census-_n_741386.html?view=print

But the right vs left "political" class lens also very closely aligns with Have vs HaveNots

So the left vs right view is actually a useful generalization.

[Parker2112]

LOL...

Parker, if you only knew how much of a joke you appear to us on both the left and right side of the isle.

This coming from the guy who was going to do some research on the type of fluoride they were using in his city. :rolleyes

Thats what I mean. You guys may not like having it pointed out, but you're full of shit, head to toe.

And having stepped on WH's feelings enough, with with pictures of chess-play no less, has resulted in my own full-time ass-sniffer.

I'm in way under my head here....

[Parker2112]

The lower 95% refuse to see America through a "class" lens, nor to see that America is engaged in class/civil warfare, but that is the most accurate view.

American class is not the European style class of "ancient royalty/aristocracy/inherited class vs the rest", but the Haves vs HaveNots. There's nothing ancient about America other than the slaughtered, marginalized aborigines.

Income Gap Widens: Census Finds Record Gap Between Rich And Poor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/income-gap-widens-census-_n_741386.html?view=print

But the right vs left "political" class lens also very closely aligns with Have vs HaveNots

So the left vs right view is actually a useful generalization.

The problem with this boutons, is that the haves have infiltrated both sides of the isle. The have nots dont have meaningful representation on either.

[Winehole23]

http://www2.ku.edu/%7Efeatures/cgi-bin/scene/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/steamwhistle.jpg

(shift change)

[Parker2112]

http://www2.ku.edu/%7Efeatures/cgi-bin/scene/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/steamwhistle.jpg

(shift change)

Thank goodness. my power ring needs the break.

[Wild Cobra]

This coming from the guy who was going to do some research on the type of fluoride they were using in his city. :rolleyes
I don't recall making that as a certainty that I would do so. I'm curious, but it's not a pressing issue to me. I'm at a loss of what to call you, but it's similar to being a hypochondriac.

Thats what I mean. You guys may not like having it pointed out, but you're full of shit, head to toe.
We all make mistakes and I've eaten crow a few times. More often lately than in the past. I'm getting sloppy because I'm not taking the time needed to clearly think of the numerous threads. I simply don't have the time to look things up or make a call to the Rockwood Public utilities Commission. I find it really comical that you think you have won arguments around here though.

[Winehole23]

Thank goodness. my power ring needs the break.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mt9ffrd5Vqg/R9_BhE2BfOI/AAAAAAAAAUM/liQCm66jxIU/s400/greenlantern.jpg

[Parker2112]

I don't recall making that as a certainty that I would do so. I'm curious, but it's not a pressing issue to me. I'm at a loss of what to call you, but it's similar to being a hypochondriac.

We all make mistakes and I've eaten crow a few times. More often lately than in the past. I'm getting sloppy because I'm not taking the time needed to clearly think of the numerous threads. I simply don't have the time to look things up or make a call to the Rockwood Public utilities Commission. I find it really comical that you think you have won arguments around here though.

See if you can follow this:
If you post a story on Obama's approach to small businesses, and then spend 10 pages or more calling it out as unsound fiscal policy, what would happen if I jump in and say you are clearly a racist.

?

I would lose, regardless whether you're argument on fiscal policy was sound or not, because I havent even taken the time to involve myself in the discussion. I just want to sling shit all over the thread.

Winehole or Cry Havoc did the equivalent: they have yet to touch on substantive issues, and yet they are butt-hurt because their respectively weak "conspiracy" dismissals have been slapped down in turn.

I didnt win on the issues. I didnt have to.. They never got off their asses and read the thread.

[Parker2112]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mt9ffrd5Vqg/R9_BhE2BfOI/AAAAAAAAAUM/liQCm66jxIU/s400/greenlantern.jpg

more like my:
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/f/a/c/5/11954345341309596458brown_eye_dave_macleod_01.svg. med.png

[Winehole23]

Your own posts amount to little more than shit slinging by your very own admission. You admitted you're too lazy to verify/refute your own sources but instead rely on other posters to do your own homework for you.

But when they take a dump on you, what do you say?


You're lazy!


Your arguments are worthless!


You're just slinging shit!

:rollin

[Parker2112]

Your own posts amount to little more than shit slinging by your very own admission. You admitted you're too lazy to verify/refute your own sources but instead rely on other posters to do your own homework for you.

But when they take a dump on you, what do you say?

:rollin

All this generalization is nauseating.

Please point to my shit slinging. Please point to sources you find incredible. Please point to any argument you made on anything of substance. Please point to the same made by me. Please point to a credible post made by you or cry havoc which contains the word "conspiracy."

I will wait.

[Winehole23]

Buddy, you've been slinging shit since word one here.

[Winehole23]

You never made any argument of substance in your own words.

[Winehole23]

And you hawk lame conspiracies.

[Winehole23]

Anyone who doubts it can just read what you write around here every day.

[Winehole23]

Nite.

[Parker2112]

All this generalization is nauseating.

Please point to my shit slinging. Please point to sources you find incredible. Please point to any argument you made on anything of substance. Please point to the same made by me. Please point to a credible post made by you or cry havoc which contains the word "conspiracy."

I will wait.

Or just hock up lame excuses.


Buddy, you've been slinging shit since word one here.


You never made any argument of substance in your own words.


And you hawk lame conspiracies.


Anyone who doubts it can just read what you write around here every day.


Nite.

wtf do you know...WH cant put together a single credible retort.

Youre not what I thought you were mane.

[boutons_deux]

The problem with this boutons, is that the haves have infiltrated both sides of the isle. The have nots dont have meaningful representation on either.

I didn't say anything about Repugs or Dems.

The Repugs have traditionally "conserved" the status quo of the Protestant White Haves, while the Dems have traditionally represented the Havenots, eg, unions/laborers, and newly arrived Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, blacks wanting a chance to HaveMore, aka, The American Dream.

The key reason that America is fucked is that the HaveNots have nobody in wealthy DC on their side, so the lower 95% will continue to get fucked, marginalized, and duped by the Haves into believing the problem is govt while the real problem is that govt is owned and operated by the Haves.

[Winehole23]

(braaap)

[Winehole23]

Youre not what I thought you were mane.I'm so hurt.

[Parker2112]

I didn't say anything about Repugs or Dems.

The Repugs have traditionally "conserved" the status quo of the Protestant White Haves, while the Dems have traditionally represented the Havenots, eg, unions/laborers, and newly arrived Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, blacks wanting a chance to HaveMore, aka, The American Dream.

The a key reason that America is fucked is that the HaveNots have nobody in wealthy DC on their side, so the lower 95% will continue to get fucked, marginalized, and duped by the Haves into believing the problem is govt while the real problem is that govt is owned and operated by the Haves.

what would you say is the best shot at correction?

[Parker2112]

I'm so hurt.

big scheme, wgaff...

[Winehole23]

You do, for some reason.

[boutons_deux]

what would you say is the best shot at correction?

There is no way to correct America. The Haves have won. GAMEOVER

[Parker2112]

There is no way to correct America. The Haves have won. GAMEOVER

I thought you might say that

[word]

Re: If you see the world in terms of Left & Right, you really aren’t seeing the world ?

I agree that if you see politics in everything, you're probably an idiot.

Both sides of OUR political system do things I can't stand, and they both do things I agree with.

One thing I can't STAND in people is knee-jerk reactions to what politicans do, based on their political affiliation. These 'Obama is an evil communist' people are just as stupid as 'Bush is a Nazi' people were.

The problems we have are, in my view, caused by the phenomena of politicians providing ever increasing social programs, having a huge military budget, funding ridiculous programs and research, while not having the balls to raise the taxes necessary to pay for them all because they know they won't get re-elected if they do.

That phenomena has nothing, zip, to do with which political party it is. If they all had to pay as they go, with the necessary taxes, that would separate the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly.

[101A]

Actually, every time I read one of the repug reposts from Fox news, I tend to think the exact same thing...what a blind oversimplification.

Fox's tendency to blame most everything on Obama, muslims, liberals, illegals, Nancy Pelosi and terrorists doesnt even come close to telling the story of our demise.

How fucked are we until blind supporters of both the left/right wake up and stop insisting on the party line on every issue.

Exactly.


The Right contingent on this board consists of the some of the most blindly-loyal brainwashed posters on ST politics forum.

Not all members of the contingent are.

and...

The posters on the left are just as bad.

[101A]

Re: If you see the world in terms of Left & Right, you really aren’t seeing the world ?

I agree that if you see politics in everything, you're probably an idiot.

Both sides of OUR political system do things I can't stand, and they both do things I agree with.

One thing I can't STAND in people is knee-jerk reactions to what politicans do, based on their political affiliation. These 'Obama is an evil communist' people are just as stupid as 'Bush is a Nazi' people were.

The problems we have are, in my view, caused by the phenomena of politicians providing ever increasing social programs, having a huge military budget, funding ridiculous programs and research, while not having the balls to raise the taxes necessary to pay for them all because they know they won't get re-elected if they do.

That phenomena has nothing, zip, to do with which political party it is. If they all had to pay as they go, with the necessary taxes, that would separate the wheat from the chaff pretty quickly.

Good post.

And if the problem is the politicians worried about reelection if they do what is necessary - it really isn't the politicians who are the problem, is it?

[word]

The one bright light I see, and this has nothing to do with the particular candidates or party, but we're seeing more competitive primaries. It was very disheartening in past elections to see the incumbents running against either no one or someone that is pretty close to no one. The party would put up some 'cannon fodder' candidate that really, was no different per se, than the incumbent. There was no diversity IN the individual parties.

For the system to work, there has to be a vigorous debate WITHIN the parties instead of the 'back room deals' of 'okay this is our candidate'.

We've got to get away from these monolithic party platforms and get some more diversity of ideas WITHIN the parties individually.

Otherwise, what happens is, you hate what you have, but if you dont' vote for them you feel like you're voting for the enemy.

You have to have a healthy vigorous primary process with multiple candidates for the system to work otherwise, no one is willing to toss out the incumbents.

[Parker2112]

The one bright light I see, and this has nothing to do with the particular candidates or party, but we're seeing more competitive primaries. It was very disheartening in past elections to see the incumbents running against either no one or someone that is pretty close to no one. The party would put up some 'cannon fodder' candidate that really, was no different per se, than the incumbent. There was no diversity IN the individual parties.

For the system to work, there has to be a vigorous debate WITHIN the parties instead of the 'back room deals' of 'okay this is our candidate'.

We've got to get away from these monolithic party platforms and get some more diversity of ideas WITHIN the parties individually.

Otherwise, what happens is, you hate what you have, but if you dont' vote for them you feel like you're voting for the enemy.

You have to have a healthy vigorous primary process with multiple candidates for the system to work otherwise, no one is willing to toss out the incumbents.

good call.

[boutons_deux]

"more competitive primaries"

competing in primaries, even winning primaries, isn't winning office.

winning office won't change anything (for the better).

eg, 535 seats in Congress, how many will tea baggers, or any extremist fringes, win?

They'll all be freshman, no power beyond their handful of votes, and they always vote against Dem legislation and for Repug legislation.

iow, NO CHANGE.

And if they want to be re-elected, they'll have to play the corrupt DC game of taking lobbyist money or other corruption in order to afford to run against candidates who do have corporate backing.

Replacing incumbents is a sucker's game. Nothing changes.

[word]

Replacing incumbents is a sucker's game. Nothing changes.

It's the only card you hold.

[MannyIsGod]

The posters on the left are just as bad.

Is that really the case? Now, don't get me wrong, there are definitely some liberal posters on this board who can be thought of as blind idiots but is the attempt to qualify one side as equal to the other simply an attempt to be as evenhanded as possible?

While I agree there are idiots on both sides, I tend to believe one side is worse than the other in foolishness on this board. I'm not talking about a Dem/Republican matrix but rather one of holding traditionally liberal views.

I firmly believe that the liberals on this board are much more open minded and generally more intelligent than the conservative contingent.

[word]

Your post contradicts your theory.

[boutons_deux]

It's the only card you hold.

It's a winning hand, you naive dipshit.

Bet against it if you think you're holding a better hand.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol

I can't help it; my mother is a psychologist,

Oh. That explains alot.:lol:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

Is that really the case? Now, don't get me wrong, there are definitely some liberal posters on this board who can be thought of as blind idiots but is the attempt to qualify one side as equal to the other simply an attempt to be as evenhanded as possible?

While I agree there are idiots on both sides, I tend to believe one side is worse than the other in foolishness on this board. I'm not talking about a Dem/Republican matrix but rather one of holding traditionally liberal views.

I firmly believe that the liberals on this board are much more open minded and generally more intelligent than the conservative contingent.

Manny, the cognitive dissonance filter just backed up.:lol

By applying these "generalizations", do you do so open mindedly? Seems to be a bit contradictory.

[Parker2112]

the generalizations probably come from DarrinS's 20 threads a day that come straight from Fox news sites and anchor blogs. He probably skews it a bit.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Is that really the case? Now, don't get me wrong, there are definitely some liberal posters on this board who can be thought of as blind idiots but is the attempt to qualify one side as equal to the other simply an attempt to be as evenhanded as possible?

While I agree there are idiots on both sides, I tend to believe one side is worse than the other in foolishness on this board. I'm not talking about a Dem/Republican matrix but rather one of holding traditionally liberal views.

I firmly believe that the liberals on this board are much more open minded and generally more intelligent than the conservative contingent.

I refuse to believe the conservative contingent of this board is representative of conservatives in general. I mean, someone please tell me that the American conservative movement doesn't consist of Jack Sommerset's, DarrinS', Wild Cobra's, etc.

I'm starting to miss whottt...

[TeyshaBlue]

the generalizations probably come from DarrinS's 20 threads a day that come straight from Fox news sites and anchor blogs. He probably skews it a bit.

I tend to discard outliers like DarrinS, boutonsky, nbadan, CC et al when evaluating a population.

[TeyshaBlue]

I refuse to believe the conservative contingent of this board is representative of conservatives in general. I mean, someone please tell me that the American conservative movement doesn't consist of Jack Sommerset's, DarrinS', Wild Cobra's, etc.

I'm starting to miss whottt...

Your refutation is correct.

Just like the progressive contingent of this board is representative of progressives in general. No way boutons, nba et al carry that torch.:toast

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Your refutation is correct.

Just like the progressive contingent of this board is representative of progressives in general. No way boutons, nba et al carry that torch.:toast

I agree

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, the cognitive dissonance filter just backed up.:lol

By applying these "generalizations", do you do so open mindedly? Seems to be a bit contradictory.

How is it a generalization to speak about a specific group of posters on this board?

[MannyIsGod]

I refuse to believe the conservative contingent of this board is representative of conservatives in general. I mean, someone please tell me that the American conservative movement doesn't consist of Jack Sommerset's, DarrinS', Wild Cobra's, etc.

I'm starting to miss whottt...

Its not. My post was about those on this board.

[Blake]

I'm starting to miss whottt...

yes, there are days...

[MannyIsGod]

I mean is anyone really going to tell me that DarrinS, Wild Cobra, Jack Somerset, and the rest of those nut jobs don't outpost (by volume) and outweigh boutons and NBADan? By far the people on this board whom I consider intelligent seem to drift to the classic liberal portion of the spectrum as I can see it.

[SnakeBoy]

:lol at how quickly your bs disintegrated this time, Parker. What's even funnier is the way you exposed yourself.

:lol As I was reading his first posts I was thinking the same thing.

[101A]

I mean is anyone really going to tell me that DarrinS, Wild Cobra, Jack Somerset, and the rest of those nut jobs don't outpost (by volume) and outweigh boutons and NBADan? By far the people on this board whom I consider intelligent seem to drift to the classic liberal portion of the spectrum as I can see it.

Of course you do.

You cannot be objective; but then neither can I.

Suffice it to say, if a metric were devised, every post from every member evaluated for open minded, fair-handedness, a conclusion might be able to be drawn, with the bias skewing from one side more than the other. However, that misses the point.

How about "both sides ARE guilty" as opposed to "both sides are EQUALLY guilty"?

[LnGrrrR]

Here we go again. Way to tackle the issues, lil pardner.



Of course, all attempts at armchair psychological diagnoses should be taken with a mountain of salt. :lol

Sorry, forgot to bold number 2.



It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:

excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs;
tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;
suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous;
a combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation;
recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;
tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude;
preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large.


:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

I readily admit I dont do the research. I dont verify sources. Thats why I dont claim to make solid arguments. Thats why I phrase my shit with "?"'s all the time. Yes Im lazy, and short on time for real research. And I usually assume someone like you or chump will have dealt with a given issue for yourselves and point out the solid take.


have you even begun to discredit them?

Let me answer that: :king.

You expect people to take work to discredit your sources, when you don't even do the research to verify them yourself? And then you have the absolute NERVE to call us out? Remove the 2x4 from thine own eye Parker.

[LnGrrrR]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mt9ffrd5Vqg/R9_BhE2BfOI/AAAAAAAAAUM/liQCm66jxIU/s400/greenlantern.jpg

WH23, are you familiar with the "Green Lantern" theory of warfare? :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Parker, I'm pretty sure that the government is actually creating spyware to infect all of our computers and turn over our financial data to them. I haven't done any research on this yet though. Would you mind confirming or debunking this theory?

[LnGrrrR]

Oh. That explains alot.:lol:toast

:lol :toast I hope that explains my debating style, and why I'm constantly asking people to define what they mean.

[LnGrrrR]

I refuse to believe the conservative contingent of this board is representative of conservatives in general. I mean, someone please tell me that the American conservative movement doesn't consist of Jack Sommerset's, DarrinS', Wild Cobra's, etc.

I'm starting to miss whottt...

Whottt? Really? I'd take WC over whottt any day.

[Winehole23]

WH23, are you familiar with the "Green Lantern" theory of warfare? :lolWillpower, imagination and freedom from fear probably figure into it, but no, I'm unfamiliar with it. I was a fan when I was really little.

Do tell.

[Winehole23]

Whottt? Really? I'd take WC over whottt any day.Every day would probably be too often for me, but I miss having him around.

There's not no one like Whottt. I mean, not even a little bit like him. He's a total original.

[LnGrrrR]

Willpower, imagination and freedom from fear probably figure into it, but no, I'm unfamiliar with it. I was a fan when I was really little.

Do tell.

AFAIK, Matt Yglesias came up with the term first, so I'll link to his explanation.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2006/07/10/the_green_lantern_theory_of_ge/



But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.

What's more, this theory can't be empirically demonstrated to be wrong. Things that you or I might take as demonstrating the limited utility of military power to accomplish certain kinds of things are, instead, taken as evidence of lack of will. Thus we see that problems in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't reasons to avoid new military ventures, but reasons why we must embark upon them: "Add a failure in Iran to a failure in Iraq to a failure in Afghanistan, and we could supercharge Islamic radicalism in a way never before seen. The widespread and lethal impression of American weakness under the Clinton administration, which did so much to energize bin Ladenism in the 1990s, could look like the glory years of American power compared to what the Bush administration may leave in its wake."

I don't even know what else to say about this business. It's just a bizarre way of looking at the world. The wreakage that the Bush administration is leaving in its wake is a direct consequence of this will-o-centric view of the world and Gerecht takes it as a reason to deploy more willpower.


WC, for instance, is a firm believer of the Green Lantern theory in warfare and economics.

[LnGrrrR]

Every day would probably be too often for me, but I miss having him around.

There's not no one like Whottt. I mean, not even a little bit like him. He's a total original.

To each their own. Maybe whottt was more enjoyable before he fell in love with Palin. (shrug) I never saw it.

[Winehole23]

Enjoyable? Not the word I'd pick to describe Whottt.

Original, volcanically irascible and totally unpredictable? Yes.

[LnGrrrR]

Original, volcanically irascible and totally unpredictable? Yes.

The same could probably describe explosive diarrhea, but I wouldn't wish for that either. :lol

[Parker2112]

You expect people to take work to discredit your sources, when you don't even do the research to verify them yourself? And then you have the absolute NERVE to call us out? Remove the 2x4 from thine own eye Parker.

1st: Imagine what it would take to get to the truth on fluoride. Financial records? Eyewitness accounts? Insider leaks? Interviews with top administrators/govt officials? Multiple scientific sources? A few dozen studies? Possible a plane ticket to Europe?

As far as I am concerned you guys saying prove it are silly.

2nd: I called out a couple of guys on issues totally outside the topic. I didnt accuse them of being wrong about fluoride, I accused them of not reading then bringing weak "conspiracy" accusations, which didnt have any thing to do with what I alleged. I cant even say alleged, because I was repeating info from an interview with an investigative reporter in post 1. However to verify or discredit him it might take the above.

Again you guys are silly.

[Winehole23]

I cant even say alleged, because I was repeating info from an interview with an investigative reporter in post 1.Monkeys can't sell bananas, dude.


However to verify or discredit him it might take the above.You never verified or refuted, but you expect us to.

See the cognitive dissonance?

[Parker2112]

one more mention: all the stuff I found is on that thread. Its been dismissed, but never dealt with. For all the skepticism, not ONE person has done a google search on the author/speaker/BBC investigative reporter and come back with discrediting info.

That actually speaks volumes

[TeyshaBlue]

1st: Imagine what it would take to get to the truth on fluoride. Financial records? Eyewitness accounts? Insider leaks? Interviews with top administrators/govt officials? Multiple scientific sources? A few dozen studies? Possible a plane ticket to Europe?

As far as I am concerned you guys saying prove it are silly.

2nd: I called out a couple of guys on issues totally outside the topic. I didnt accuse them of being wrong about fluoride, I accused them of not reading then bringing weak "conspiracy" accusations, which didnt have any thing to do with what I alleged. I cant even say alleged, because I was repeating info from an interview with an investigative reporter in post 1. However to verify or discredit him it might take the above.

Again you guys are silly.

It's silly to posit something as fact and then lol @ proof.
Imagine what it would take to get the truth on flouride? Perhaps it's already there and you just don't like it. I guess it's not the truth you were looking for?

And by silly, I mean kinda retarded.

[Parker2112]

You never verified or refuted, but you expect us to.

See the cognitive dissonance?

Actually, if you want to argue, argue. if you dont buy move on. I do it all day on this board. You dont find me on DarrinS muslim threads. I just move on.

I dont expect you to, but it would be nice to have an intelligent discussion rather than listening to pure-dee skepticism with no meat.

Normally thats the way it works: assertion, followed by acceptance or criticism, and if the criticism is worth a dime it will be backed up with some facts.

Yours wasnt on either account. you know this to be true.

[Parker2112]

It's silly to posit something as fact and then lol @ proof.
Imagine what it would take to get the truth on flouride? Perhaps it's already there and you just don't like it. I guess it's not the truth you were looking for?

And by silly, I mean kinda retarded.

Just as retarded as arguing about fluoride without ever talking about fluoride, perhaps?

[TeyshaBlue]

Just as retarded as arguing about fluoride without ever talking about fluoride, perhaps?

I think RG utterly destroyed your quasi position-that's-not-a-position-until -you-want-it-to-be-a-position, on flouride. It's telling how you simply gloss over that.

[Winehole23]

I dont expect you to, but it would be nice to have an intelligent discussion rather than listening to pure-dee skepticism with no meat.You're not trying very hard. You've spent way more time/effort bantering with me than addressing your critics on the substance.

[Blake]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mt9ffrd5Vqg/R9_BhE2BfOI/AAAAAAAAAUM/liQCm66jxIU/s400/greenlantern.jpg

:lol

[LnGrrrR]

1st: Imagine what it would take to get to the truth on fluoride. Financial records? Eyewitness accounts? Insider leaks? Interviews with top administrators/govt officials? Multiple scientific sources? A few dozen studies? Possible a plane ticket to Europe?

As far as I am concerned you guys saying prove it are silly.

And yet, when people provide evidence that runs counter to your claims, you dismiss it, saying that "scientists can be bought off".

You ask for evidence, and then you dismiss it. In fact, you admit to the fact that you think it's nigh impossible to prove/disprove, yet still expect us to do so. The only way it seems you'd accept proof is if we physically showed up on your doorstep, performed the tests, and educated you enough to understand the results.


2nd: I called out a couple of guys on issues totally outside the topic. I didnt accuse them of being wrong about fluoride, I accused them of not reading then bringing weak "conspiracy" accusations, which didnt have any thing to do with what I alleged. I cant even say alleged, because I was repeating info from an interview with an investigative reporter in post 1. However to verify or discredit him it might take the above.

You admitted you don't even do your own research, but get pissy when people dismiss your arguments without research? GMAFB.

[Parker2112]

I think RG utterly destroyed your quasi position-that's-not-a-position-until -you-want-it-to-be-a-position, on flouride. It's telling how you simply gloss over that.

RG never addressed the constitutional issue. RG threw out numbers on SA water, which means less than 1% considering the national market. RG said science was incorruptable.

I dont doubt that you skeptics arent right, I dont claim to be right on the substance, because as I said proof or disproof would require more resources than Im spendig. However, Im starting to see the forest for the trees here.

You guys DO believe youre right without ever addressing the facts. You DO think you can cover the facts up with feces and the stench will make them disappear.

Just like there are certain pschological schools that deal with conspiracy beliefs, there are also lines that deal with the need to have the fundamental paradigm remain. The need of the avg joe to be able to buy what is sold. That is what drives such sloppy opposition.

[Parker2112]

You're not trying very hard. You've spent way more time/effort bantering with me than addressing your critics on the substance.

youve never read the accounts. youre view is irrelevant. even if you say you are a reader, there is a page of "fluoridefacts" just for you. If youre not going to read, then why continue?

[Parker2112]

And yet, when people provide evidence that runs counter to your claims, you dismiss it, saying that "scientists can be bought off".

You ask for evidence, and then you dismiss it. In fact, you admit to the fact that you think it's nigh impossible to prove/disprove, yet still expect us to do so. The only way it seems you'd accept proof is if we physically showed up on your doorstep, performed the tests, and educated you enough to understand the results.



You admitted you don't even do your own research, but get pissy when people dismiss your arguments without research? GMAFB.

RG actually said that the scientific community was immune to corruption. Are you saying the same? And how full-of-shit is the nature of that statement? And your trying to bank RG?

[Winehole23]

You guys DO believe youre right without ever addressing the facts. Not really. There's a difference between us demolishing your lame inferences from the evidence and covering up for a conspiracy you never proved.

[Winehole23]

If youre not going to read, then why continue?It's a pastime, and you are mildly amusing.

RG read, responded and backed his own shit up. Why do you continue to ignore him?

[Winehole23]

Oh, and btw RG did address your constitutional point, so your characterization that no one has done so is plainly false.

[Parker2112]

Oh, and btw RG did address your constitutional point, so your characterization that no one has done so is plainly false.

quote?

[TeyshaBlue]

RG never addressed the constitutional issue. RG threw out numbers on SA water, which means less than 1% considering the national market. RG said science was incorruptable.

I dont doubt that you skeptics arent right, I dont claim to be right on the substance, because as I said proof or disproof would require more resources than Im spendig. However, Im starting to see the forest for the trees here.

You guys DO believe youre right without ever addressing the facts. You DO think you can cover the facts up with feces and the stench will make them disappear.

Just like there are certain pschological schools that deal with conspiracy beliefs, there are also lines that deal with the need to have the fundamental paradigm remain. The need of the avg joe to be able to buy what is sold. That is what drives such sloppy opposition.

Would you be shocked to know that a buddy of mine who oversee's the water treatment of a large SoCal city also thinks you're full of shit? You see, his city also does not treat their water with NaF.

There. That's two examples where you are demonstrably incorrect. How bout you pony up at least one that supports your unsubstantiated point of view. Oh that's right. When pressed, you'll gladly admit you have no idea what you're talking about and then, as if you never said it, demand proof!
As if you would understand proof if it bit you on the ass.:lmao

Again, RG utterly vaporized your position-that's-not-a-position-unless it really-is-a-position-until-somebody-pushes-you-and-it-ceases-to-be-a-position-again.

[Winehole23]

quote?Guess you didn't read all the way through the thread. That didn't stop you from kicking all your critics into the same ditch though, did it?

[TeyshaBlue]

quote?

It's in the thread where he handed you your ass. Go back there if you can.

[LnGrrrR]

RG actually said that the scientific community was immune to corruption. Are you saying the same? And how full-of-shit is the nature of that statement? And your trying to bank RG?

That's alot of assumptions in one post.

I'm sure that what RG meant is that the scientific community, at large, is relatively immune to corruption. You can't bribe the entire scientific community.

As well, Occam's Razor (I doubt you're familiar with the concept) would lead one to believe that, just perhaps, the entire scientific community isn't being bribed.

But you love that idea, because that's your failsafe. No matter how much evidence comes up to disprove the idea that flouride is dangerous, you can back yourself up with the idea that those who say such are being bribed. It's a dishonest way to argue.

[Parker2112]

Would you be shocked to know that a buddy of mine who oversee's the water treatment of a large SoCal city also thinks you're full of shit? You see, his city also does not treat their water with NaF.

There. That's two examples where you are demonstrably incorrect.

To be clear: Do they treat at all?

[TeyshaBlue]

To be clear: Do they treat at all?

Yes in one plant and no in another. Different water sources. Neither use NaF.

[Parker2112]

That's alot of assumptions in one post.

I'm sure that what RG meant is that the scientific community, at large, is relatively immune to corruption. You can't bribe the entire scientific community.

As well, Occam's Razor (I doubt you're familiar with the concept) would lead one to believe that, just perhaps, the entire scientific community isn't being bribed.



Then maybe these guys are honest:

Letter of Concern to EPA Administrator, from the unions, current as of today, along with several other letters to confirm their history of opposition which stands as of 2010.

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...idesummary.htm (http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/fluoridesummary.htm)

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...epa.a.2005.htm (http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouride.unions.epa.a.2005.htm)


With shit like this floating around, I have a hard time buying the winholes of the world honestly. Internet research is only just so good. And its not as though mine is any better, but the issue is disputed, and you guys claim it is cut and dried. So again you guys are on the losing end here.

[Parker2112]

Yes in one plant and no in another. Different water sources. Neither use NaF.

Do you know what they are treating with in the one?

[TeyshaBlue]

Do you know what they are treating with in the one?

I'll fire him another email and ask him.

[Parker2112]

I'll fire him another email and ask him.

My wife asked around at two water plants in central texas and it was NaF.

[Blake]

Then maybe these guys are honest:


With shit like this floating around, I have a hard time buying the winholes of the world honestly. Internet research is only just so good. And its not as though mine is any better, but the issue is disputed, and you guys claim it is cut and dried. So again you guys are on the losing end here.

Those guys might honestly think they are right.

[LnGrrrR]

Then maybe these guys are honest:

You don't think scientists can honestly differ on the results of a test, and the interpretations of those results?

Here's a hint: Two people can think results mean different things, and both are being "honest".



With shit like this floating around, I have a hard time buying the winholes of the world honestly. Internet research is only just so good. And its not as though mine is any better, but the issue is disputed, and you guys claim it is cut and dried. So again you guys are on the losing end here.

Because, for all intents and purposes, it is cut and dried. Are you aware you're asking people to DISPROVE something, without making a valid PROOF of it yourself?

As far as dismissing the argument... well, people do that when you don't make valid and cogent arguments in favor of something. If I told you that I could turn sand into ice cream, would you believe me? Do you need to research the principles of atomic bonding and molecular formation in order to tell me I'm full of shit?

[Parker2112]

You don't think scientists can honestly differ on the results of a test, and the interpretations of those results?

Here's a hint: Two people can think results mean different things, and both are being "honest".




Because, for all intents and purposes, it is cut and dried. Are you aware you're asking people to DISPROVE something, without making a valid PROOF of it yourself?

As far as dismissing the argument... well, people do that when you don't make valid and cogent arguments in favor of something. If I told you that I could turn sand into ice cream, would you believe me? Do you need to research the principles of atomic bonding and molecular formation in order to tell me I'm full of shit?

You realize that for all the damage you claim was inflicted on the claims, no one ever addressed this?

We cant. None of us. Unless we have the capability to run long term scientific studies, at major expense, we are standing here in a circle jerk.

Admit your limitations.

You guys really believe you can "prove" what federal scientists are divided over? And yet you have been claiming to "know" that its all bullshit. Really take a look at the bullshit within this approach.

[Winehole23]

My wife asked around at two water plants in central texas and it was NaF.You've got your wife toting water around for you too. Poor thing.

Tell me: if your wife and all of us have to vet all your sources, what exactly do you do around here besides fling shit on the wall and admire it?

[Parker2112]

You don't think scientists can honestly differ on the results of a test, and the interpretations of those results?

Here's a hint: Two people can think results mean different things, and both are being "honest".




Because, for all intents and purposes, it is cut and dried. Are you aware you're asking people to DISPROVE something, without making a valid PROOF of it yourself?

As far as dismissing the argument... well, people do that when you don't make valid and cogent arguments in favor of something. If I told you that I could turn sand into ice cream, would you believe me? Do you need to research the principles of atomic bonding and molecular formation in order to tell me I'm full of shit?

I can stand on the Professional Unions assertions all day. You guys cant even knock me off that single source. And nor has anyone tried.

[TeyshaBlue]

My wife asked around at two water plants in central texas and it was NaF.

Really? Which ones?

[Parker2112]

You've got your wife toting water around for you too. Poor thing.

If it's your wife and all of us who have to vet all your sources, what exactly do you do around here besides fling shit on the wall and admire it?
My wife is an environmental lab manager. She oversees water quality for much of central texas. The guys she asked are co-workers.

Just like the Federal Professionals Union, she doesnt like the shit at all.

But Im sure you know better than she. What do you do again Winehole?

[Blake]

You guys really believe you can "prove" what federal scientists are divided over?

What federal scientists are against fluoridation?

[Parker2112]

Really? Which ones?

Georgetown and one other near Waco I think.

[Parker2112]

What federal scientists are against fluoridation?

its linked above. but once again:
Letter of Concern to EPA Administrator, from the unions, current as of today, along with several other letters to confirm their history of opposition which stands as of 2010.

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...idesummary.htm (http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/fluoridesummary.htm)

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...epa.a.2005.htm (http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouride.unions.epa.a.2005.htm)

[Parker2112]

Its not as cut and dried as you all would like to believe.

[LnGrrrR]

You guys really believe you can "prove" what federal scientists are divided over? And yet you have been claiming to "know" that its all bullshit. Really take a look at the bullshit within this approach.

Your worldview is in serious error if you don't take the word of anyone without confirming it for yourself.

Tell me Parker, how about the movement of the solar system? Have you personally flown into space to observe it? If not, how can you be sure we really revolve around the sun?

If I provide you a link to the Flat-Earth society, would you claim to "know" that they are wrong? How can you know if you haven't done the research yourself?

[Parker2112]

Your worldview is in serious error if you don't take the word of anyone without confirming it for yourself.

Tell me Parker, how about the movement of the solar system? Have you personally flown into space to observe it? If not, how can you be sure we really revolve around the sun?

If I provide you a link to the Flat-Earth society, would you claim to "know" that they are wrong? How can you know if you haven't done the research yourself?

If you cant bank Federal Scientists Union on Fluoride, who can you trust?

[Blake]

its linked above. but once again:
Letter of Concern to EPA Administrator, from the unions, current as of today, along with several other letters to confirm their history of opposition which stands as of 2010.

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...idesummary.htm (http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/fluoridesummary.htm)

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluori...epa.a.2005.htm (http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouride.unions.epa.a.2005.htm)

One of the glaring anti fluoride references listed from that link was J Colquhoun and his book "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation".


Why We Have Not Changed Our Minds about the
Safety and Efficacy of Water Fluoridation:
A Response to John Colquhoun
Ernest Newbrun, D.M.D., Ph.D.
Herschel Horowitz, D.D.S., M.P.H.
In 1997, the journal Perspectives in Biology and Medicine published an opinion piece, "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation," by John Colquhoun [1]. Although the journal's stated purpose is to convey new ideas or stimulate original thought in biological and medical sciences, Colquhoun presented no new data. His paper rehashed earlier criticisms of water fluoridation, using selective and highly biased citations of the scientific and nonscientific literature [2-10].

Colquhoun, who died in March 1999, was a dental officer in New Zealand during the 1970s and early 1980s. His writings display blatant bias in evaluating the published literature on fluoridation, criticizing any study supporting fluoridation for poor design (e.g. non-blind examinations, non-random selection of subjects and communities), while ignoring gross defects in the methods used in studies that found no caries reduction in fluoridated communities. He was the Editor of Fluoride, a magazine published by the International Society for Fluoride Research, for which he was also the Treasurer. Despite its propitious title, Fluoride is primarily a vehicle for printing articles that decry the benefits of communal water fluoridation (13 of Colquhoun's 73 citations are from this anti-fluoride publication). Colquhoun's paper is in the same genre.........

http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/newbrun.html

that's one down.

Do you have any other specific names or or you going to keep up the same strawman motif?

[Parker2112]

Your worldview is in serious error if you don't take the word of anyone without confirming it for yourself.

Tell me Parker, how about the movement of the solar system? Have you personally flown into space to observe it? If not, how can you be sure we really revolve around the sun?

If I provide you a link to the Flat-Earth society, would you claim to "know" that they are wrong? How can you know if you haven't done the research yourself?

I challenge you to prove the Earth is round without relying on the word of anyone.:lol

[Blake]

If you cant bank Federal Scientists Union on Fluoride, who can you trust?

Just curious sidebar: what is your opinion of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"?

[MannyIsGod]

Of course you do.

You cannot be objective; but then neither can I.

Suffice it to say, if a metric were devised, every post from every member evaluated for open minded, fair-handedness, a conclusion might be able to be drawn, with the bias skewing from one side more than the other. However, that misses the point.

How about "both sides ARE guilty" as opposed to "both sides are EQUALLY guilty"?

I'm not too sure neither of us can be objective. Why? Because we have views of a certain nature? Why would that preclude us from coming to an objective viewpoint?

In any event, your revised statement is much better, IMO. Of late, I've wondered how much both sides do equally muddy the waters. I don't think its simplys afe to assume its equal.

[LnGrrrR]

I challenge you to prove the Earth is round without relying on the word of anyone.:lol

That's kinda my point.

[Blake]

I challenge you to prove the Earth is round without relying on the word of anyone.:lol

I don't believe the word of the sources you have been using.

[LnGrrrR]

Parker claims an extreme skepticism... except in the sources he touts.

[Parker2112]

One of the glaring anti fluoride references listed from that link was J Colquhoun and his book "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation".



that's one down.

Do you have any other specific names or or you going to keep up the same strawman motif?

You realize that the signatories are the "undersigned representatives of a majority (eleven) of EPA’s employee unions"?

Would you like to deal with all members of all 11 unions?

[Parker2112]

That's kinda my point.

and yet you would assert that all day in this forum. Youre life view must be fucked like mine.

[Parker2112]

Just curious sidebar: what is your opinion of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"?

Now if you take it there THATS a strawman.

[Parker2112]

One of the glaring anti fluoride references listed from that link was J Colquhoun and his book "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation".



that's one down.

Do you have any other specific names or or you going to keep up the same strawman motif?

you realize the title of the article you cited to disprove the validity of your assertion was titled:

Why We Have Not Changed Our Minds about the
Safety and Efficacy of Water Fluoridation:
A Response to John Colquhoun

right?

[Parker2112]

you realize you cited one for you, two for me
Ernest Newbrun, D.M.D., Ph.D.
Herschel Horowitz, D.D.S., M.P.H right?

[Parker2112]

fish in a barrel.

[Blake]

You realize that the signatories are the "undersigned representatives of a majority (eleven) of EPA’s employee unions"?

Would you like to deal with all members of all 11 unions?

I realize that but in that link, the union referenced a source that I read up on and found it to be easily debunked.

You also said federal scientists are divided on it.

I'd like to know what scientist exactly has a problem with fluoridated water.

I know it's a tough task for you to back up your claims, but you should it give a try. Otherwise, it's just us thinking you are ass talking again.

[Blake]

Now if you take it there THATS a strawman.

Thanks for verifying you have no clue what strawman means.

[Parker2112]

you realize you cited one for you, two for me right?

[Parker2112]

Thanks for verifying you have no clue what strawman means.

if we cant win on the argument at hand, lets shift the argument so that I can claim points.

If you are losing on fluoride, lets attack credibility of the opponent on a seperate argument, but insinuate that the two are somehow tied.

[Blake]

you realize the title of the article you cited to disprove the validity of your assertion was titled:

right?

you didn't read the article and the sources they provide.

right.

[Blake]

you realize you cited one for you, two for me right?

I cited one quack author and two legitimate authors.

right.

[Blake]

fish in a barrel.

imminent jpeg coming.

[Parker2112]

I realize that but in that link, the union referenced a source that I read up on and found it to be easily debunked.

You also said federal scientists are divided on it.

I'd like to know what scientist exactly has a problem with fluoridated water.

I know it's a tough task for you to back up your claims...

so now you want me to tell you why these professionals have reached the conclusion that fluoridation is bad?

Well, I do know, but why cant you just assume that professionals in the field know more than us?

Is it because their views dont comport with your own, and you want to stay delusional on this issue? :lol

[Blake]

if we cant win on the argument at hand, lets shift the argument so that I can claim points.

what exactly is your argument?

I'm not sure you even know what your argument really is.


If you are losing on fluoride, lets attack credibility of the opponent on a seperate argument, but insinuate that the two are somehow tied.

I'm not personally attacking the credibility of the opponent.

Legitimate sources have done that already in very convincing fashion.

[LnGrrrR]

and yet you would assert that all day in this forum. Youre life view must be fucked like mine.

There's a reason why we have experts: to determine the truth of things. Do they get it wrong sometimes? Of course. But if you're going to say that the experts are wrong, you have to provide PROOF that shows they are wrong. You can't just take a competing claim and elevate it to the same stature.

Let me make the point again for you. I have never been to Africa, so I don't know personally what animals live there. I have two friends, one who tells me that elephants live in Africa, and one that says penguins live in Africa.

Should I take both their claims as seriously? Should I discount their claims until I'm able to verify personally? Tell me what YOU think I should do in such a situation.

[Blake]

so now you want me to tell you why these professionals have reached the conclusion that fluoridation is bad?

no, just a name of a scientist that is against it please.

Are the words I am typing that hard to understand.

"Name" "Scientist" "Please"


Well, I do know, but why cant you just assume that professionals in the field know more than us?

I absolutely believe the word of real professionals in the field.

Why do you not believe the word of the surgeon general?


Is it because their views dont comport with your own, and you want to stay delusional on this issue? :lol

It's because the views of the "professionals" you have cited have been found to be lacking in real evidence.

Please continue to stay ignorant on this issue.

[Parker2112]

no, just a name of a scientist that is against it please.

Are the words I am typing that hard to understand.

"Name" "Scientist" "Please"





You did that for me.

These two guys are against. The two guys you cited. You supported my contention. Do you need me to explain further?



you realize you cited one for you, two for me

Ernest Newbrun, D.M.D., Ph.D.
Herschel Horowitz, D.D.S., M.P.H










right?

[Parker2112]

no, just a name of a scientist that is against it please.

Are the words I am typing that hard to understand.

"Name" "Scientist" "Please"



I absolutely believe the word of real professionals in the field.

Why do you not believe the word of the surgeon general?





no one is arguing that the fluoride is harmful within limits. EVERYONE IS ARGUING that the whole practice is unnecessary. Or did you not get that memo?

[Parker2112]

empty house. naysayers that went toe to toe for hours scatter like dogs when the same info that has been there all along is regurgitated.

you guys are classic.

[LnGrrrR]

Let me make the point again for you. I have never been to Africa, so I don't know personally what animals live there. I have two friends, one who tells me that elephants live in Africa, and one that says penguins live in Africa.

Should I take both their claims as seriously? Should I discount their claims until I'm able to verify personally? Tell me what YOU think I should do in such a situation.

[Parker2112]

One intersects with tons of other data you already have knowledge of (penguins live in cold climate, africa doesnt have a cold climate)

One also intersects with stuff youve been exposed to since childhood (african elephants are real)

Fluoride doesnt lend itself to such "common sense". This circumstance deals with ingesting fluoride, as distinguished from topical application. no knowledge is available without scientific research. Same with Earth is round.

and yet the peanut gallery doesnt believe the scientific unions. Do they believe that the earth is round?

go figure.

[Blake]

You did that for me.

These two guys are against. The two guys you cited. You supported my contention. Do you need me to explain further?


Why We Have Not Changed Our Minds about the
Safety and Efficacy of Water Fluoridation

Ernest Newbrun, D.M.D., Ph.D.
Herschel Horowitz, D.D.S., M.P.H.

http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/newbrun.html


These guys are for, idiot. :lol

RIF failure yet again.

[Blake]

no one is arguing that the fluoride is harmful within limits. EVERYONE IS ARGUING that the whole practice is unnecessary. Or did you not get that memo?

NOBODY worth note is arguing that it is unnecessary.

I've been asking for the name of the scientist that provided you with such a memo.

Your constant failure to provide just one name does nothing but further confirm that you are nothing more than an asstalker.

[Blake]

empty house. naysayers that went toe to toe for hours scatter like dogs when the same info that has been there all along is regurgitated.

you guys are classic.

The actualy naysayers of fluoridated water are the ones regurgitating the same criticisms over and over, even though they have been handily answered/debunked.

[LnGrrrR]

One intersects with tons of other data you already have knowledge of (penguins live in cold climate, africa doesnt have a cold climate)

One also intersects with stuff youve been exposed to since childhood (african elephants are real)

Fluoride doesnt lend itself to such "common sense". This circumstance deals with ingesting fluoride, as distinguished from topical application. no knowledge is available without scientific research. Same with Earth is round.

Technically, knowing that elephants live in Africa involves scientific research, ie. hypothesis, data, results.

So, are you agreeing that some claims may not require rigorous testing to disprove them?


and yet the peanut gallery doesnt believe the scientific unions. Do they believe that the earth is round?

go figure.

How many scientific unions take up your side, as opposed to the scientists who disagree with your side? Are they all on your side?

[Blake]

and yet the peanut gallery doesnt believe the scientific unions. Do they believe that the earth is round?


the nutjob in this thread doesn't believe almost every official organization and entity that has posted a statement regarding the benefits of fluoridated water.

[Parker2112]

These guys are for, idiot. :lol

RIF failure yet again.

you got me. RIF failure. I admit it.

[Parker2112]

NOBODY worth note is arguing that it is unnecessary.

I've been asking for the name of the scientist that provided you with such a memo.

Your constant failure to provide just one name does nothing but further confirm that you are nothing more than an asstalker.

here's a few, along with a few organizations that oppose:

Statements against
Since 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency) (EPA) headquarters' union has expressed concerns about fluoride. In 2005, eleven EPA employee unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service, called for a halt on drinking water fluoridation programs across the USA and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Cancer) in people. [39] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-38)
In 1992, speaking on the Canadian television program Marketplace (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Marketplace_(TV_series)), former EPA (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/EPA) scientist Robert Carton claimed that "fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Fraud) of this century." The practice was described as the "longest running public health controversy in North America" in the broadcast. [40] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-39)
In addition, over 3,038 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Arvid_Carlsson)), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online petition to Congress.[41] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-FlorideAlertAugust2007-40) The petition signers express concern for vulnerable (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Vulnerability) groups like "small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Diabetics), and people with poor kidney (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Kidney) function," who they believe may already be overdosing (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Overdosing) on fluoride.[41] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-FlorideAlertAugust2007-40) Another concern that the petition signers share is, "The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Toxicological) testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion."[41] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-FlorideAlertAugust2007-40) The petition was sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Fluoride_Action_Network).[42] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-41)[43] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-42)[44] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-43)[45] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-44)
Hardy Limeback (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Hardy_Limeback), PhD, DDS (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Doctor_of_Dental_Surgery) was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences) panel that issued the aforementioned report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards. Dr. Limeback is an associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/University_of_Toronto). He detailed his concerns in an April 2000 letter titled, "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water".[46] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-Limeback2000-45)
In a presentation to the California Assembly (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/California_Assembly) Committee of Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, Richard Foulkes, M.D., former special consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/British_Columbia), revealed:

The [water fluoridation] studies that were presented to me were selected and showed only positive results. Studies that were in existence at that time that did not fit the concept that they were "selling," were either omitted or declared to be "bad science." The endorsements had been won by coercion and the self-interest of professional elites. Some of the basic "facts" presented to me were, I found out later, of dubious validity. We are brought up to respect these persons in whom we have placed our trust to safeguard the public interest. It is difficult for each of us to accept that these may be misplaced.[47] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-46)
A 2001 study found that "fluoride, particularly in toothpastes, is a very important preventive agent against dental caries," but added that "additional fluoride to that currently available in toothpaste does not appear to be benefiting the teeth of the majority of people."[48] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-Sheiham-47)
On April 15, 2008, the United States National Kidney Foundation (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/National_Kidney_Foundation) (NKF) updated their position on fluoridation for the first time since 1981.[49] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-48) Formerly an endorser of water fluoridation, the group is now neutral on the practice. The report states, “Individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure by providing information on the NKF website including a link to the report in brief of the NRC [21] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-NRC2006-20) and the Kidney Health Australia position paper." [50] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-49) Calling for additional research, the foundation's current position paper states, however, that there is insufficient evidence to recommend fluoride-free drinking water for patients with renal disease.[51] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-50)
The International Chiropractor's Association (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/International_Chiropractor%27s_Association) opposes mass water fluoridation, considering it "possibly harmful and deprivation of the rights of citizens to be free from unwelcome mass medication."[52] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ICA_position-51)
In the United States, the Sierra Club opposes mandatory water fluoridation. Some reasons cited include possible adverse health effects, harm to the environment, and risks involving sensitive populations.[53] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-52) In 2006, the Massachusetts legislature decided not to consider a bill that would have mandated water fluoridation throughout the state, because of concerns about health effects.[54] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-53)

[Parker2112]

Technically, knowing that elephants live in Africa involves scientific research, ie. hypothesis, data, results.

So, are you agreeing that some claims may not require rigorous testing to disprove them?



How many scientific unions take up your side, as opposed to the scientists who disagree with your side? Are they all on your side?
this is a statement of the NTEU's position and fight to stop floridation.


Fluoride and Professional Ethics As that battle was raging, another one was in the making.
While EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint. He said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement that offended his sense of professional ethics. The statement was to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky teeth" (as he put it) i.e., severe dental fluorosis. It was OK, EPA said, because that condition was only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.


We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a 1986 lawsuit filed against EPA by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The more union scientists looked into the fluoride issue, the darker it got.

For example, we uncovered a letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water telling a citizen that EPA views the use of hydrofluosilicic acid to fluoridate water supplies as "an ideal solution to a long standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic (sic) acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized. . ." In other words, this stuff that would be considered a pollutant if it got into the air or dumped into a river, is OK as long as it is dumped straight into a drinking water reservoir. The solution to pollution is dilution, according to this official. Thus EPA turns a toxic waste whose disposal would cost the fertilizer industry many millions of dollars into a pure profit item for industry worth many millions of dollars.

In May, 1992, EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, who also was our local union's Treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the fluoride cancer risk issue. This occurred following publication in 1991 of a National Toxicology Program bioassay of sodium fluoride that showed male rats got bone cancer after dosing with fluoride at levels only about one hundred-fold greater than the public receives. The judge who heard the lawsuit brought against EPA over the firing made the finding that EPA fired the toxicologist over his fluoride work, and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. He won his lawsuit and was put back on the payroll at EPA in 1994, with back pay and a $50,000 damage award, but only after the Agency was forced to do so by the Secretary of Labor and public embarrassment.


In 1997, the union was asked to write a support letter, outlining our past involvement with the fluoride issue, for Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a neurotoxicologist, who was suing her former employer for firing her because she published a paper on the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride. This we did. That letter came to the attention of some California citizens. They then asked the union to endorse the Californians For Safe Drinking Water ballot initiative aiming to keep fluoride out of that State's water supplies. Before calling for a vote of its members on this request, the union arranged a seminar by Prof. Paul Connett of St. Lawrence University and Dr. Bob Carton, our former Local President, covering toxicity data published in the mid and late 1990's. Based on the seminar and the preponderance of other adverse information on fluoride of which we had become aware since 1985, we voted unanimously to endorse the California initiative.


We published a White Paper in May 1999 on the subject of fluoride toxicity and water fluoridation that is now on the Internet. Two scientists from the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, who happen also to be union officers, sent a memo to EPA's Children's Health Protection work group on neurotoxicity hazards that could be experienced by children from fluoride, based on recent studies (never receiving the courtesy of an acknowledgment of that memo). We have asked EPA to supply non-fluoridated water to its Headquarters employees, and we have been responding to inquiries from the public, press and government officials who want to know about the union's stand on this issue.

We also worked through 1999 and into 2000 with Congressional Committees as they began to inquire into this issue.

In June 2000, the union was invited to testify before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water. In our testimony we called attention to the vast amount of adverse information on fluoridation that has accumulated since Congress last studied the issue and called for a national moratorium on the practice pending anepidemiology study. The epidemiology study would use childhood dental fluorosis as the index of exposure and behavioral problems and bone pathology as the effects of concern. We also called for an independent review of cancer slides from the 1991 National Toxicology Program bioassay on sodium fluoride, for chronic toxicity testing of hydrofluosilicic acid, and for a full Congressional hearing on fluoridation. Citizen groups around the country also are petitioningCongress for a hearing, the last previous one having been held in 1977.

[Parker2112]

and try this:



WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS
OPPOSES FLUORIDATION
"Why EPA Headquarters' Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation."

The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.
The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.
Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.
We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.\1
Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.
In 1995, Mullenix and co-workers \2 showed that rats given fluoride in drinking water at levels that give rise to plasma fluoride concentrations in the range seen in humans suffer neurotoxic effects that vary according to when the rats were given the fluoride - as adult animals, as young animals, or through the placenta before birth. Those exposed before birth were born hyperactive and remained so throughout their lives. Those exposed as young or adult animals displayed depressed activity. Then in 1998, Guan and co-workers \3 gave doses similar to those used by the Mullenix research group to try to understand the mechanism(s) underlying the effects seen by the Mullenix group. Guan's group found that several key chemicals in the brain - those that form the membrane of brain cells - were substantially depleted in rats given fluoride, as compared to those who did not get fluoride.
Another 1998 publication by Varner, Jensen and others \4 reported on the brain- and kidney damaging effects in rats that were given fluoride in drinking water at the same level deemed "optimal" by pro-fluoridation groups, namely 1 part per million (1 ppm). Even more pronounced damage was seen in animals that got the fluoride in conjunction with aluminum. These results are especially disturbing because of the low dose level of fluoride that shows the toxic effect in rats - rats are more resistant to fluoride than humans. This latter statement is based on Mullenix's finding that it takes substantially more fluoride in the drinking water of rats than of humans to reach the same fluoride level in plasma. It is the level in plasma that determines how much fluoride is "seen" by particular tissues in the body. So when rats get 1 ppm in drinking water, their brains and kidneys are exposed to much less fluoride than humans getting 1 ppm, yet they are experiencing toxic effects. Thus we are compelled to consider the likelihood that humans are experiencing damage to their brains and kidneys at the "optimal" level of 1 ppm.
In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China\5,\6 that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.
Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride's interference with the function of the brain's pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body's internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke\7 has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956, as part of the Kingston/Newburgh study, which is discussed below. In fluoridated Newburgh, young girls experienced earlier onset of menstruation (on average, by six months) than girls in non-fluoridated Kingston \8.
From a risk assessment perspective, all these brain effect data are particularly compelling and disturbing because they are convergent.
We looked at the cancer data with alarm as well. There are epidemiology studies that are convergent with whole-animal and single-cell studies (dealing with the cancer hazard), just as the neurotoxicity research just mentioned all points in the same direction. EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water's chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union's treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue\9 . The judge who heard the lawsuit he brought against EPA over the firing made that finding - that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA. Documentation is available on request.
The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. The National Toxicology Program conducted a two-year study \10 in which rats and mice were given sodium fluoride in drinking water. The positive result of that study (in which malignancies in tissues other than bone were also observed), particularly in male rats, is convergent with a host of data from tests showing fluoride's ability to cause mutations (a principal "trigger" mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous) e.g.\11a, b, c, d and data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey \12 , Washington and Iowa \13 based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.
Bone pathology other than cancer is a concern as well. An excellent review of this issue was published by Diesendorf et al. in 1997 \14. Five epidemiology studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated communities. \15a, b, c, d, e. Crippling skeletal fluorosis was the endpoint used by EPA to set its primary drinking water standard in 1986, and the ethical deficiencies in that standard setting process prompted our union to join the Natural Resources Defense Council in opposing the standard in court, as mentioned above.
Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.\16. The latest publication \17 on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.
John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important\18. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.
Further on the point of the tide turning against drinking water fluoridation, statements are now coming from other dentists in the pro-fluoride camp who are starting to warn that topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in tooth paste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health \19, \20, \21. However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies which show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste\22. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study mentioned above, further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.
In any event, a person can choose whether to use fluoridated tooth paste or not (although finding non-fluoridated kinds is getting harder and harder), but one cannot avoid fluoride when it is put into the public water supplies.
So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled - and apparently uncontrollable - exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products. A recent report in the lay media\23, that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, at least 22 percent of America's children now have dental fluorosis, is just one indication of this uncontrolled, excess exposure. The finding of nearly 12 percent incidence of dental fluorosis among children in un-fluoridated Kingston New York\17 is another. For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.
Thus, we took the stand that a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance is wrong.
We have also taken a direct step to protect the employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water. We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.
The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry\24. This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D (%[email protected]). For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.

[Parker2112]

the silence is golden.

[Parker2112]

Suck my crackpot, bitches. :lmao


Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA's standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation's drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.

This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D (%[email protected]). For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.

[Wild Cobra]

Parker, that's not the same issue.

[Parker2112]

Parker, that's not the same issue.

came from this article:
WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS
OPPOSES FLUORIDATION.

[Parker2112]

they openly state that our water reseviors are being used as a dump for toxic waste which is what Ive been saying all along.

[Wild Cobra]

they openly state that our water reseviors are being used as a dump for toxic waste which is what Ive been saying all along.
That's not the same as fluoridation in water. We know there is a pollution problem.

[Parker2112]

The whole letter talks about fluoridation. Why is the summary talking about something the letter never addresses, especially given its length?

Please show something in that article talking about general pollution of water supply.

WC, you havent been listening. They reference phosphate fertilizer industry, which is exactly where our fluoride comes from.

[Wild Cobra]

The whole letter talks about fluoridation. Why is the summary talking about something the letter never addresses, especially given its length?

Please show something in that article talking about general pollution of water supply.

WC, you havent been listening. They reference phosphate fertilizer industry, which is exactly where our fluoride comes from.
If that's the best you have, then we need to take you off to the loonie bin.

I suppose you're against making natural gas from sewer waste also.

hnzHtm1jhL4

[Parker2112]

If that's the best you have, then we need to take you off to the loonie bin.

I suppose you're against making natural gas from sewer waste also.

hnzHtm1jhL4

EPA scientists aren't good enough for you then? Doctors arent good enough? Nobel Prize Winners? How about the PHDs and DDSs? Minister of Health of BC?

You are absolutely right WC...we are all looney :toast

[LnGrrrR]

No one's debating that there are some people that argue your point Parker. What we're asking is whether the MAJORITY of scientists are on your side. It seems that there are at least as many people who argue that flouridation has little to no negative side effects, and/or confers positive benefits.

[LnGrrrR]

EPA scientists aren't good enough for you then? Doctors arent good enough? Nobel Prize Winners? How about the PHDs and DDSs? Minister of Health of BC?

You are absolutely right WC...we are all looney :toast

Are you implying that there aren't recognizable/reputable names that oppose your viewpoint?

[Parker2112]

Are you implying that there aren't recognizable/reputable names that oppose your viewpoint?

LNG, I have been called a complete crackpot for even hinting at the same thing these scientists have stated here. Not by you, although you pushed the conspiracy nut angle pretty heavy.

Now you admit that this view is not limited to nuts and crackpots?

Now you admit that there is a reasonable debate going on here?

I think the majority dont oppose fluoridation, however, I think the majority of people dont question the prevailing paradigm without cause, and so that doesnt say much IMO.

[Parker2112]

WC, remember this oldie but goodie?

Bad news: when confronted with facts, people ignore them
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/id...stPop_Emailed1 (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed1)

[LnGrrrR]

LNG, I have been called a complete crackpot for even hinting at the same thing these scientists have stated here. Not by you, although you pushed the conspiracy nut angle pretty heavy.

Now you admit that this view is not limited to nuts and crackpots?

Now you admit that there is a reasonable debate going on here?

To be honest, I don't really bother to investigate; I've got other things on my plate. If you feel it's important, kudos to you. However, I'd say if you do think it's important, you should probably take the time to actually research it, and not just post ideas and expect others to do your work for you. I was more annoyed with your poor argumenting form.


I think the majority dont oppose fluoridation, however, I think the majority of people dont question the prevailing paradigm without cause, and so that doesnt say much IMO.

Sure, there are some instances where the majority of scientists get things wrong. Galileo was an example of someone proving the majority wrong.

However, in order to do so, you really need a smoking gun. Look at Einstein; he had hard evidence, data, etc etc to back his stuff up, and performed empirical tests to measure the data, which confirmed his theories.

Have the scientists who opposed flouridation been able to provide this smoking gun yet? It seems they haven't.

[Blake]

Suck my crackpot, bitches. :lmao



This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D (%[email protected]). For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.




John Colquhoun's publication on this point of efficacy is especially important\18. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation - until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation's effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, "Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation." In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.

So far, Hirzy seems to be a sincere chemist.

I don't understand his need to point out Colquhoun who points have been previously debunked years before Hirzy prepared this statement.

[Parker2112]

To be honest, I don't really bother to investigate; I've got other things on my plate.

That makes two of us. This was floating around that thread and I didnt bother digging it out until today...I didnt want to bother doing the search.

Its actually not that important, but I have informed myself on the issue, and I know where I stand: its an unnecessary practice.

The reason these scientists havent been able to stop the practice is IMO, and as I have said before, the fertilzer and aluminum industries are avoiding pollution disposal costs, and Im sure the govt sees this as a way to avoid 1. people getting sick and 2. industry collapsing under the weight of expensive disposal.

[Blake]

That makes two of us. This was floating around that thread and I didnt bother digging it out until today...I didnt want to bother doing the search.

no way.


Its actually not that important, but I have informed myself on the issue, and I know where I stand: its an unnecessary practice.

it was important enough for you to make a thread on it, talk out of your ass and post a few jpegs along the way for pages on pages


The reason these scientists havent been able to stop the practice is IMO, and as I have said before, the fertilzer and aluminum industries are avoiding pollution disposal costs, and Im sure the govt sees this as a way to avoid 1. people getting sick and 2. industry collapsing under the weight of expensive disposal.

what makes you think the industry has been collapsing for the last 40 years under the weight of expensive disposal?

[Wild Cobra]

EPA scientists aren't good enough for you then? Doctors arent good enough? Nobel Prize Winners? How about the PHDs and DDSs? Minister of Health of BC?

You are absolutely right WC...we are all looney :toast
My point is Address the EPA. Hold them accountable. If the facts are on your side and EPA refuses to budge, then you have a case the the news-media would love to get hold of. I see this as another scare tactic. Maybe you should follow the money and see who gets rich if these scares work.

As yourself, how many times did someone actually get their 15 minutes of fame on these incomplete science scares, to find out years later they were wrong?