It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this the only reason all Americans just bend over and GET ******??

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by unknown known
 


You'll also notice that many of the 60's/70's/80's major riots were over race related issues. We've come a long way, especially since the LA Riots over the Rodney King beating brought the point to a head. Compare these trends to when Flouride was first suspected or confirmed to be added to the tap water. Especially in major cities, since that is where riots most generally occur.




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


No one is denying fluoride is toxic. Everything is toxic. The difference between sick and not sick is how much fluoride the baby ingests. How much is "optimal amount"? .7mg/L? If the baby is receiving more than the optimal there will be negative side effects. A responsible parent would be informed and monitor the fluoride intake of the child.

There have been countless studies on the benefits of fluoride. Google it. This is silly, I don't even know why we're talking about this.

It's hard for me to not go crazy when I see things like your Prozac example. Just because the large fluoxetine compound has fluorine in it doesn't mean it's bad for you. Fluoxetine also has 2 benzenes in it. No one freaks out about that. C17H18F3NO is the compound. Ingesting benzene is not the same as ingesting fluoxetine.

Yes, fluoride in elevated amounts is not good for infants, you're right. Water in elevated amounts is also not good for infants. Let's ban water.

www.youtube.com...

Not everything is a conspiracy.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi, inquisitive persons.

king9072 said:
" SO WHY? Why does europe care so much, while the US does not? "

Because:
1- See what TV quality is NOT here, the WORST beeing "reality" ones.
2- See how (fixed up) sport$ keep most potatoes on the couch.
3 - See how **superficial** most are, taking more care of
outside looks [ Clothing, avatar, car ] than "inside/mind" state.
4- See how many believe religions, and do NOT think by themselves.
5- See the kind/type of films are produced.
6- . . .want more I forgot ???

king9072 said:
" Am I the only person who thinks. . . "
Fortunately NO ! More and more wake up. . .

Blue skies.


Hey man, alot of good points especially about TV you are absolutely correct.

But religion you are wrong. While traveling through the country side of france (in particular), it is painfully obvious how beloved religion is. You drive into a town, maybe of a population of 1000 or something, tiny tiny towns.

The biggest building in the town, is maybe a 2 story house. But then theres the church. Churchs TOWER over the next biggest building, at least 5 stories high. They are monsters, no matter how small the town is they have a MONSTER church.

I would say, if anything religion is stronger in europe than it is in the US.

But your TV link is very good.

Ontop of the fluoride issue, theres also aspartame!

www.youtube.com...


Yes, but those churches are empty on Sundays. If they weren't historic, they probably would have been torn down by now to make room for a pub.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
Thats because in the US, everyones told how free they are when they aren't free whatsoever.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe


I think that's the crux of it - even someone as independently minded as myself didn't really realize what was going on until after college.

The internet certainly helped us in the US see thru the matrix a little clearer.

Most of us have close ties to European family - so I dispute the idea that Europeans are any freer - you already allowed the EU to be imposed upon you after all.

I would say its a 1st World Problem - we have been duped to believe we are free when we have been born into a society where power has already been seceded to the Central Bankers.

But now we know - lets fix it already!




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by alkali
reply to post by king9072
 


No one is denying fluoride is toxic. Everything is toxic. The difference between sick and not sick is how much fluoride the baby ingests. How much is "optimal amount"? .7mg/L? If the baby is receiving more than the optimal there will be negative side effects. A responsible parent would be informed and monitor the fluoride intake of the child.

There have been countless studies on the benefits of fluoride. Google it. This is silly, I don't even know why we're talking about this.

It's hard for me to not go crazy when I see things like your Prozac example. Just because the large fluoxetine compound has fluorine in it doesn't mean it's bad for you. Fluoxetine also has 2 benzenes in it. No one freaks out about that. C17H18F3NO is the compound. Ingesting benzene is not the same as ingesting fluoxetine.

Yes, fluoride in elevated amounts is not good for infants, you're right. Water in elevated amounts is also not good for infants. Let's ban water.

www.youtube.com...

Not everything is a conspiracy.


Alright, no matter what, your right. You show me a video bout getting people to sign up for a bogus water ban, cause the camera crew was able to convince so idiots walking down the street - I show you 30 minute documentary about the harms of fluoride and the lies that have been perpetuated by the industry. And you just ignore it.

Theres a difference, and your in a huge minority defending the use of fluoride. Enjoy your water, have a big glass for me!



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Can someone name a large, 1st world nation with more freedom and less government involvement into the lives of its citizens than the US?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
Can someone name a large, 1st world nation with more freedom and less government involvement into the lives of its citizens than the US?


You mean.. a country that doesn't record every single conversation that takes place across digital or analogue media?

Or do you mean something else



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
Can someone name a large, 1st world nation with more freedom and less government involvement into the lives of its citizens than the US?


Canada.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by stevegmu
Can someone name a large, 1st world nation with more freedom and less government involvement into the lives of its citizens than the US?


You mean.. a country that doesn't record every single conversation that takes place across digital or analogue media?

Or do you mean something else


I meant exactly what I wrote.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by stevegmu
Can someone name a large, 1st world nation with more freedom and less government involvement into the lives of its citizens than the US?


You mean.. a country that doesn't record every single conversation that takes place across digital or analogue media?

Or do you mean something else


I meant exactly what I wrote.



For the second time, CANADA.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by stevegmu
Can someone name a large, 1st world nation with more freedom and less government involvement into the lives of its citizens than the US?


Canada.

Really? Ever hear of their human rights tribunals? Seems anyone can file a claim against anyone else, who is then investigated for a hate crime, if someone is offended by the words of another.
I also meant large population-wise, not geographically.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by stevegmu
Can someone name a large, 1st world nation with more freedom and less government involvement into the lives of its citizens than the US?


Canada.

Really? Ever hear of their human rights tribunals? Seems anyone can file a claim against anyone else, who is then investigated for a hate crime, if someone is offended by the words of another.
I also meant large population-wise, not geographically.



Lol, its a large "westernized civilization", the freest nation on the planet and you bring up human rights tribunals?

Is this the scenario you imagine?

Dave walks out of the store...
Steve calls dave a dumb face
Dave files a hate crime report
and human rights tribunals are started?

Common sense is lost on you.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by stevegmu

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by stevegmu
Can someone name a large, 1st world nation with more freedom and less government involvement into the lives of its citizens than the US?


Canada.

Really? Ever hear of their human rights tribunals? Seems anyone can file a claim against anyone else, who is then investigated for a hate crime, if someone is offended by the words of another.
I also meant large population-wise, not geographically.



Lol, its a large "westernized civilization", the freest nation on the planet and you bring up human rights tribunals?

Is this the scenario you imagine?

Dave walks out of the store...
Steve calls dave a dumb face
Dave files a hate crime report
and human rights tribunals are started?

Common sense is lost on you.


I seem to recall a case involving a priest being investigated for a hate crime because he spoke out against homosexuality.

It has been a while, but I distinctly remember not being able to buy a 6-pack of beer without going to s state Beer Store.
Aren't press coverage of trials also banned in Canada? How about H. Stern and R. Limbaugh? Weren't they banned by the Canadian government?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 




I seem to recall a case involving a priest being investigated for a hate crime because he spoke out against homosexuality.


Haha, recall but just can't remember specifics or find a link?



It has been a while, but I distinctly remember not being able to buy a 6-pack of beer without going to s state Beer Store.


A state beer store? Haha, maybe you should stop commenting about Canada now. And your wrong.



Aren't press coverage of trials also banned in Canada? How about H. Stern and R. Limbaugh? Weren't they banned by the Canadian government?


Even if it were true, those guys are both bell ends anyways, seems like a win win for us.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by stevegmu
 




I seem to recall a case involving a priest being investigated for a hate crime because he spoke out against homosexuality.


Haha, recall but just can't remember specifics or find a link?



It has been a while, but I distinctly remember not being able to buy a 6-pack of beer without going to s state Beer Store.


A state beer store? Haha, maybe you should stop commenting about Canada now. And your wrong.



Aren't press coverage of trials also banned in Canada? How about H. Stern and R. Limbaugh? Weren't they banned by the Canadian government?


Even if it were true, those guys are both bell ends anyways, seems like a win win for us.



Alphonse de Valk was the Catholic priest.
link


My bad the Beer Store isn't state-run, just a monopoly the government allows.

link

I see, you don't agree with H. Stern or R. Limbaugh, so it is OK for their broadcasts to be banned.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by stevegmu
 




I seem to recall a case involving a priest being investigated for a hate crime because he spoke out against homosexuality.


Haha, recall but just can't remember specifics or find a link?



It has been a while, but I distinctly remember not being able to buy a 6-pack of beer without going to s state Beer Store.


A state beer store? Haha, maybe you should stop commenting about Canada now. And your wrong.



Aren't press coverage of trials also banned in Canada? How about H. Stern and R. Limbaugh? Weren't they banned by the Canadian government?


Even if it were true, those guys are both bell ends anyways, seems like a win win for us.



Alphonse de Valk was the Catholic priest.
link


My bad the Beer Store isn't state-run, just a monopoly the government allows.

link

I see, you don't agree with H. Stern or R. Limbaugh, so it is OK for their broadcasts to be banned.



I havent seen any evidence that theyre banned, as we do have both Sirius and XM satellite radio and I know for a fact howard stern is on one of those. So evidence that they are banned would be appreciated.

Why your so concerned about how we obtain alcohol, bewilders me, but for your information there are more non-government liquor stores than government. They are reffered to as "cold beer and wine stores" and dot the corners of every town big or small.

And what I guess I didn't make clear when I pointed out your "state" comment, we don't have states. And I have never been a priest speaking out against homosexuality so I don't know why you want me to feel compassionate.

If these few points, which have been rebutted, is the best you have in defending the fact that the US is a freer nation than Canada, I think you should just quit now and go to another thread. I forgive your ignorance of Canada.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by stevegmu

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by stevegmu
 




I seem to recall a case involving a priest being investigated for a hate crime because he spoke out against homosexuality.


Haha, recall but just can't remember specifics or find a link?



It has been a while, but I distinctly remember not being able to buy a 6-pack of beer without going to s state Beer Store.


A state beer store? Haha, maybe you should stop commenting about Canada now. And your wrong.



Aren't press coverage of trials also banned in Canada? How about H. Stern and R. Limbaugh? Weren't they banned by the Canadian government?


Even if it were true, those guys are both bell ends anyways, seems like a win win for us.



Alphonse de Valk was the Catholic priest.
link


My bad the Beer Store isn't state-run, just a monopoly the government allows.

link

I see, you don't agree with H. Stern or R. Limbaugh, so it is OK for their broadcasts to be banned.



I havent seen any evidence that theyre banned, as we do have both Sirius and XM satellite radio and I know for a fact howard stern is on one of those. So evidence that they are banned would be appreciated.

Why your so concerned about how we obtain alcohol, bewilders me, but for your information there are more non-government liquor stores than government. They are reffered to as "cold beer and wine stores" and dot the corners of every town big or small.

And what I guess I didn't make clear when I pointed out your "state" comment, we don't have states. And I have never been a priest speaking out against homosexuality so I don't know why you want me to feel compassionate.

If these few points, which have been rebutted, is the best you have in defending the fact that the US is a freer nation than Canada, I think you should just quit now and go to another thread. I forgive your ignorance of Canada.


I was referring to when he was on FM.

Most people understand that state can e used to refer to a country or nation.

You are the one who said Canadians enjoy more freedoms and less government interference than Americans. Clearly such is not the case, given monopolies are allowed, the state heavily censors the media, and freedom of speech is non-existent= if someone is offended. I could cite 1000's of examples as to how Canada is a nanny-state, whose citizens are not nearly as free as Americans, but there is no need, as several examples have proven my point already.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by alkali
[Also, please explain in detail how the amounts of fluoride in our drinking water creates "docile sheep". I'm interested to hear the biochemistry involved. ]

Hitler gave concentration camp prisoners fluoride to pacify them so they wouldn't rebel.

Hitler obviously used greater concentrations of this toxic product than what is currently added to the water supply, but it's just enough to do the job.

Maybe some cities are using Hitler-level concentrations in their water supply, I don't know.

I wouldn't put it past the PTB to not do this.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


You make it sound like regardless of you what say I won't change my mind. That's wrong, you can make me change my mind, but everything you've given is either flat out wrong, a stretch of the truth, or blatant refusal to look at how things actually work. Your Prozac example was completely off base, regardless of what a youtube video told you. Just because it has fluorine in it does not make it bad. I can't get past that.

The video of about banning water was making a point. People will subscribe to anything if you dumb it down and use a serious tone.

Fluoride is toxic, yes. I agree. But I want you to admit that it's only toxic in large doses (primarily in infants). I also want you to admit that fluoride has made a drastic improvement in dental caries in Jamaica (link). I also want you to admit that there is no truth to your statement about fluoride creating docile sheep unless you can prove it.

Show me that I'm wrong. Don't bring up Prozac again.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by star in a jar
 


I found the quote from Hitler but no source. I looked all over. Help me out?




new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join