Originally posted by ouvertaverite
Originally posted by crankyoldman
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by moniesisfun
Originally posted by FissionSurplus
People who say that vaccines are used to spread something are right - they spread LIFE. Those who say they "might" be part of some grand conspiracy are speculating without evidence, and making mischief for reasons only they can tell you.
edit on 4-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)
That's an interesting statement of PR but it isn't really the entire truth. You have no way of knowing, none, zero, what is in any given vaccine. You are not to see the ingredients as they are proprietary, you are not allowed to see the factory, as it is proprietary, you cannot sue the companies that make the stuff (by law) and you are not allowed to be involved in any single aspect of the process accept to take the stab.
That said, it has been proven over and over again that big pharma lies, a lot, nearly all the time - vioxx is a fun one, but there are many, many other examples.
Now, we know they lie, we know we cannot educate ourselves with information outside their PR system, and, through some very interesting statements we know the vaccines carry all manner of virus' including cancer virus' and the mfg's are not really interested in either revealing that or changing that.
Given the facts that surround the supreme mystery that is the jab, how can one honestly say, "they bring life?" I would contend that many would agree the population is hardly operating at its maximum, either emotionally or spiritually and some of us can track the contribution of the jab energy. I would contend that there are those of us that can "see" the energy that makes up these jabs and it is some very, very awful stuff that does some very disturbing things to the energy of the humans who inject themselves.
Resources are not scarce, they are hoarded, made scarce, through artificially created distribution problems and other forms of manipulation. "Over population" is not the reason there is scarcity of resources or poverty. Poverty results, largely because of fiat currency debt/interest. Because only a limited number of debt notes are printed means the "interest" must be taken from some one other then the debtor - another country, and those countries have their resources taken to pay off compound interest debt. Because there aren't enough debt notes in America to pay off your mortgage debt (you borrowed 100k and it was printed on the spot but the 300k you owe isn't printed at all), you need to get your debt notes from someone else, and so on, the poverty countries are the end of the line. If the overlords wanted people dead, this is easily done, what they want is to have them broken, spiritually dead, addicted to pharma meds, tv, and desperation with no time to truly evaluate the reality they live in - enslavement perfection is a slave who won't run given the chance. The jab is a tool to keep the illusion of this system alive and to makes sure the slave will not only not run, but won't even fight back against the slave masters.
great post--too bad it got miniaturized!
yeah but at least it was readable before You got Your filthy hands on it and...oh crap, what've I done!
seriously though, Children, calm down! Some people think differently and things will always be that way. At least, until the HiveMind Infestation of 2013 infects us all... O.O
Originally posted by Wonderer2012
As a theory, yes.
But it goes back to the wider conspiracy, why are people in Africa so poor and starving in the first place?
To improve the method mix of programs, male and female sterilization and IUDS can be made more readily available through mobile facilities (such as sterilization vans in Thailand) or periodic "camps" (such as vasectomy and tubectomy camps in India and IUD "safaris" in Indonesia).
One long-standing project of the US Government has been to perfect a genetically-modified variety of corn, the diet staple in Mexico and many other Latin American countries. The corn has been field tested in tests financed by the US Department of Agriculture along with a small California bio-tech company named Epicyte. Announcing his success at a 2001 press conference, the president of Epicyte, Mitch Hein, pointing to his GMO corn plants, announced, “We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies.”
Hein explained that they had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants. In this manner, they have produced a concealed contraceptive embedded in corn meant for human consumption.
Originally posted by moniesisfun
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
You're pretty sure of yourself.
I'm not so sure of you.
The absolutes are a bit too extreme for my taste.
I'll just leave it at that.
Nah, screw it. I'ma stand on this one.
Try this for starters. It only took like one freaking minute to disprove your absolute rubbish:
LInkedit on 4-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Wonderer2012
Notice how they call the birth of a child an"infection"?
Now all one needs to do is look up Eugenics, GMO's, Agenda 21 and I am sure there are more I can't think of off the top of my head, but the puzzle starts to take shape!!!edit on 4-10-2012 by seeker1963 because: spelling
Originally posted by SubAce
It seems to be if evolution is correct that atheists, or at least Darwinian evolutionists shouldn't have to worry about population control. Doesn't blind chance have an "eye" that sees things and adapt so as to survive. This Chance should correct things to keep life alive and adapting and evolving. Why mess with it?
Why put your faith in Darwinian evolution only up to a point and then think you have to step in? Doesn't that really just belie a lack of faith in your dogma to begin with?
Who says there is enough food for everyone?
Both of the world's leading authorities on food distribution (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] and the World Food Programme [WFP]) are very clear: there is more than enough food for everyone on the planet. The FAO neatly summarizes the problem of starvation, saying that "the world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it." Food is a lot like money: just because some people have none doesn't mean that there isn't enough of it--it's just spread unevenly.
What do you mean when you say we are producing more food on less land?
Exactly that. Thanks to continuing increases in crop yields, the world's farmers are harvesting hundreds of millions of tons more grain each year on tens of millions acres less land than they did in the 1970s and '80s. For instance, according to USDA figures, the world was producing 1.9 million metric tons of grain from 579.1 hectares of land (a hectare is 2.47 acres) in 1976. In 2004, we got 3.1 million metric tons of grain from only 517.9 hectares of land. This is quite a jump.
This is not to say that we won't possibly need to dedicate more land to farming in the future. The point is, a rise in population is not always matched by a rise in the amount of land required to feed that population.
Download the data on world grain production from the FAO website.
The U.S. government pays farmers not to grow food?
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's web site, "the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner." What this means is that the government has created a fund to allow farmers to give their land "time off" from growing crops. This is done by "renting" the land from the farmers, so that things like grass and trees can be planted there instead of crops. This helps prevent soil erosion and encourages wildlife habitats, and reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes.
The upshot of this is that our nation would never be able to afford to do this if we were anywhere near maxing out our food growing capabilities. Our current food surplus means that we are able to give some of our farmland back to the wild, instead of frantically using it all to feed a supposedly exploding population.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program
List of payments to date from the USDA's Conservation Reserve Program