UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i sleep better at night knowing that not only will he never be president, but that he will be out of congress after next year as well.
and statistically, you have likely ejaculated while dreaming about ron paul.
The Republicans Presidential Candidate
- Thread starter beardo
- Start date
and statistically, you have likely ejaculated while dreaming about ron paul.
Dan Kone
Well-Known Member
Nope. The republicans have already crossed the rubicon. They have a field of candidates who are exactly what they asked for. Unreasonable ideologues who can't beat Obama. There isn't a republican in the field who represents main stream America more than Obama (and Obama is doing a terrible job of doing that). The only candidate who could beat Obama in the general elections outside of Huntsman. And Huntsman can't win a republican primary because he's too smart and reasonable.
Republicans have screwed themselves over big time. Their best shot at beating Obama is Romney lol. And if you haven't noticed yet, CEOs who got rich by firing everyone aren't exactly popular right now.
Congrats on reelecting Obama republicans! Keep it up and you'll give democrats control of congress too! Well done.
dukeanthony
New Member
I want to jear more from Huntsman
But info is in short supply
I dont think he is a serious Candidate
But info is in short supply
I dont think he is a serious Candidate
That's the thing about you, all to often you are worried about me instead of the issues. You dont have a thought process and cannot respond to the issues so I guess that is understandable.
dont call him uncledukie, I saw him first
sigh the point was he never wrote them. Prove he said he wrote them
Ron Paul is about freedom and liberty when it comes to schools. The thought is to have local control. Parents and teachers have little control now.
In the future IF government is changed in education and economics then private schools and others set up by charities would make up the school system. Currently much more is spent on the education per child in public schools than private and the quality of the public education system is much worse. Costs more, delivers less.
absorb it
on no I'd much rather read these baseless posts.
[video=youtube;tGtFbFMOkpU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGtFbFMOkpU[/video]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;z-EAYncCRok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-EAYncCRok[/video]sigh the point was he never wrote them. Prove he said he wrote them
Ron Paul is about freedom and liberty when it comes to schools. The thought is to have local control. Parents and teachers have little control now.
In the future IF government is changed in education and economics then private schools and others set up by charities would make up the school system. Currently much more is spent on the education per child in public schools than private and the quality of the public education system is much worse. Costs more, delivers less.
absorb it
on no I'd much rather read these baseless posts.
here he is talking about privatizing all schools.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1996_1343749/campaign-96-u-s-house-newsletter-excerpts-offer-am.html
and there is a link to an article in the houston chronicle where he said he wrote the racist newsletter during the 1996 election. hell, one of his spokesmen said he was STILL writing them.
keep on denying it, it just amuses me
tryingtogrow89
Well-Known Member
We all know you are super slow, we all know you repeat your masters rhetoric, we all know you can not think for yourself.
1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water . This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.
2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:
In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."
In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."
In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."
In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."
In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."
According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.
Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).
5) There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:
A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.
B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.
C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.
B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.
C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.
Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:
a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)
b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)
c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)
d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)
e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)
b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)
c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)
d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)
e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)
Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)
b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)
c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”
is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.
9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)
c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”
is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.
a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)
b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)
b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)
"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)
Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)
* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you make this statement, and then follow it up with a copy and paste...were you going for the ironic fail?
tryingtogrow89
Well-Known Member
You're just frustrated you keep getting schooled hard son. Read and weep, for you too see how incredibly stupid and incorrect you 
are.
are.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
do you not see the irony in accusing me of "repeating rhetoric" and being unable to "think for myself", and then posting a copy and paste which you have posted before?
are you really that fucking dense?
dukeanthony
New Member
READ MY SIGNATUREYou're just frustrated you keep getting schooled hard son. Read and weep, for you too see how incredibly stupid and incorrect you
lolWUT?
tryingtogrow89
Well-Known Member
the only thing that is dense is the fact that you bite right into the farce, the scheme of global warming, and your heroes are Obama and Al gore. Need i say more? oh and the fact that all data and facts about the U.S.A. water being poisoned are completely incomprehensible to you. Why do you think we have citys stopping the poisoning? Because its POISON, If you swallow a pea sized amout of toothpaste you immeadeately call poison control go read your toothpaste warning on your tube... dont worry ill wait...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yeah, the ocean levels are rising and the temperatures are increasing for no reason whatsoever. leagues of scientists are studying how to deal with the effects of global warming rather than how to combat it because it is all just one big lie and they are just REALLY dedicated to it.the only thing that is dense is the fact that you bite right into the farce, the scheme of global warming, and your heroes are Obama and Al gore. Need i say more? oh and the fact that all data and facts about the U.S.A. water being poisoned are completely incomprehensible to you. Why do you think we have citys stopping the poisoning? Because its POISON, If you swallow a pea sized amout of toothpaste you immeadeately call poison control go read your toothpaste warning on your tube... dont worry ill wait...
yep, you got it dead right there.
that, and the founding fathers never allowed slavery. hell, they didn't even believe in it!
i'm gonna go brush my teeth with POISON before banging my wife. have fun collecting your unemployment check.
tryingtogrow89
Well-Known Member
Yeah and all that is happening from your s.u.v. exhaust haha, you give me that and expect me to have some type of revaluation? You left out the part where you forgot to explain you couldnt comprehend thrid grade science in school and totally rely to get educated from your MSM, i cant believe you are actually trying to debate this farce, your skillz seriously lack to try to take on everyday science my newborn nephew could do. Though I have found out that you who get educated from MSM are a minority so thats good, phwew. Make sure you dont swallow your toothpaste, or do i dont GAF. dont believe me read that back of the tube. Seems like winter and season changes are expected this year as the last and the one before that and and the one before that, okay you get the point.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
there is NO WAY humans can effect their environment.
rivers just catch themselves on fire, and temperatures rise at an increased rate when they should be dropping because liberals are brainwashing you.
also, you drank too much fluoride, you're going to die.
are you dumber than a bag of hammers, or just way too eager to collect that next unemployment check?
tryingtogrow89
Well-Known Member
ha ruining our enviroment or using up natural resources is not the same as humans carbon output which is millions of times less than the oceans and volcanoes output somehow cause our planet to warm up... 0_o jesus now ive heard it all. It has been shown and proved again and again that cabon of any abundance can not i repeat Can Not heat the planet, did you know every planet in the solor system is heating up, hmm i wonder why that is? what could it possibly be? US HUMANS! lol LMAO!
sync0s
Well-Known Member
Sorry, it was bothering me. I've seen you do that a few times.... lol
As you were...
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
affect versus effect is my weakness, but also very pliable.Sorry, it was bothering me. I've seen you do that a few times.... lol
As you were...
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx
i did use 'affect' properly in that sentence. so you can't pick on me for that.
