100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Perhaps the place to begin is to learn a bit about the history of this organization. National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM), or Breast Cancer Awareness Month as it was originally called, was the brainchild of a British chemical conglomerate called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which became Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, and today is known as AstraZeneca. By their own admission, AstraZeneca has spent several million dollars on the NBCAM project. What is behind their interest in Breast Cancer? For over the last 20 years, AstraZeneca was the manufacturer of one of the largest selling breast cancer drugs in the world: Nolvadex (tamoxifen citrate). (According to a notice posted at www.nolvadex.com, Nolvadex is no longer manufactured or sold in the United States as of June 2006; however, the drug's generic form tamoxifen citrate is still available). Nolvadex is not a cure for cancer. It has been heavily prescribed as a drug to lessen the risk of reoccurrence in women who have previously received treatment for breast cancer. It was also approved for use as a "risk reduction" drug (the FDA would not allow the term "prevention"), and prescribed to women with no presence of breast cancer who are considered to be at elevated risk. This drug has been very profitable for AstraZeneca, with sales over $400 million annually, but it is also a very controversial drug. It has significant side effects that have been linked to uterine cancer, liver cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, depression, eye damage, blood clots, and even breast cancer--the very condition it is supposed to treat! But the story doesn't stop there. AstraZeneca (ICI) is a chemical giant, and is one of the world's top producers of organochlorides, which are chlorine-based industrial chemicals. Organochlorides are used in the manufacture of a wide variety of compounds, including Agent Orange, PCB's, and DDT. Organochlorides are also known carcinogens, and studies have found them to be specifically associated with increased incidence of breast cancer. So here we have a corporation--a very large and profitable corporation with sales of $14 billion in 1998-- that makes its money from industrial chemicals that cause cancer and drugs that treat (and potentially cause) cancer. Incidentally, they also have a large financial stake in cancer treatment centers. This brings us to another major criticism of NBCAM: the focus of their efforts is almost exclusively on detection and treatment of breast cancer, not on prevention. This only makes sense since their main financial backer is a huge corporation that makes a fortune off the treatment of a disease they contribute to causing. But beyond that, breast cancer and cancers in general can be prevented through changes in diet and lifestyle, like staying away from chemicals and drugs that cause cancer! The problem with this is that prevention is very inexpensive and not very profitable. One more interesting thing about AstraZeneca's relationship with NBCAM is that part of the arrangement allows AstraZeneca to approve and/or veto any marketing materials related to NBCAM. Thus, you will not find anything related to environmental causes of breast cancer or how it can be prevented by avoiding exposure to them. The American Cancer Society minimizes the cancer risks from industrial chemicals and pesticides, and will not take a stand on environmental regulation. It is a very carefully controlled Public Relations ploy. Cancer treatment is big business in the United States. Some have called it "The Cancer Industry" or "Cancer, Inc." The corporate and financial connections form a long and winding road that goes far beyond AstraZeneca, and include such giants as DuPont and General Electric. Mammograms are the big buzz word as of late, and the push is on for women to get them at a younger and younger age. Please please leave a link to your articles, so we know where they come from. I appreciate the article and I don't particularly trust the whole mammogram push I'd like to know where you get your information. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh yeah stopping laws, erase most of them , judisiously represent all those in it, be guided by morality and ethics balanced by flexibility and growth where by one person affects another..............................just the bones no flesh Could you be more specific? What laws? who's morality? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everybody knows there are problems, we watch as the elected politicians slowly remove my rights, your rights; they pit us against each other because we are different and would choose to be. So we get it, you cant please everyone; and still little by little one by one, a few choose (add a few more if they are finaced),a few judge (subtract a few if there is no finacing), and a few enforce ( again subtract a few but that is due to finacing). Everything is legal (right?), or its not (wrong?), unless the amount of money involved is directly proportional to X, then the basic rules do not apply, and a new law is required to allow for its inception? ive got the answer how bout you? I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about.. Politicians really don't have to go very far out of their way to pit us against each other. We do that on our own. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 The guy that owns Blackwater mercenary company is delusional and thinks he is a christian Crusader Knight and got busted having swinger parties
Isn't it always the way.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't see them making the bible any more crazy than it already is, but what worries me is their idea to use it as a text book in public schools. If I were a parent I'd be livid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why some folks are so freaked out by anything liberal. And especially the religious nut cases? Son of Schafly, I should have known. Phyllis Schlafly was a speaker at the recent Values Voter Summit along with what looked like half or the republican leadership.
He doesn't want to edit the bible? Then what do you call changing words in it? I guess the bible isn't scary enough in it's current translation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You change your politics to suite the bible? That was a joke right, Quite? Or no? I have to admit to having a good deal of paranoia when it comes to what the religious right is up to. Thankfully I probably will not be alive when the next few generations have been under the influence of this new translation. Though it might be slightly amusing to watch people, each with their version of the bible argue with eachother over who's version is correct.
How many dang times can people translate something that was hearsay to begin with, just amazes me that people think the bible is the word of a God we have never seen or heard from. I never really cared what people believed, back when religion wasn't something you beat people over the head with or hell maybe I just was lucky to have never come in direct contact with fundementalists. Now it just gets crazier and crazier and more in your face every day. I can't even believe how far the religious right has come in their insanity of the past 30 years, and how much politics is involved, while I was busy just living my life. But this to me is very dangerous. With people behind the Koran also passing out manipulated versions of the Koran, and now the christian conservatives wanting to manipulate the Bible to suite their own agenda, I fear for those that will deal with the results of this manipulation long after I am gone. In a way it's good that people are shining a light on this, but people already easily manipulated by religion are far more numerous than people willing to question authority. Or at least that is they way it seems in the media... Why aren't more people worried about this sort of thing? I mean this isn't a conspiracy, it's actually happening and isn't being hidden. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What really ticks me off is when these big organizations do wrong, it's always those that have nothing to do with it, but rely on them, that get the shaft.
What ticks me off further is when politicians use an organization like Acorn for their own agenda. Not sure which pisses me off worse. With the last campaign it was hoped that Acorn would prevent Obama from becoming president. For that I am glad it failed to do that very thing, because it was an obvious sleazy political BS move. But that fact that those same politicians will use it to hopefully distort or destroy Obama is still despicable. I'm not sure what you are referring to Willing, I just despise manipulators no matter who they are. Getting paid to sell stuff to himself? What are you referring to? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess seperation of church and state, though ignored by the RIGHT, just isn't good enough. We need to fully indoctrinate the future generations.
Conservatives have a project to translate the Bible more inline with conservative views. WOW, and they want this as a public school text book. Man, these folks have some nerve. I heard this on cable news this morning, but thought I would do a quick google on it. http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project If the zillions of translations don't work for you and don't bring enough converts to control and manipulate, just change it again. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Conservative Bible Project From Conservapedia Jump to: navigation, search Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning: lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ lack of precision in modern language translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one. Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.[1] As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2] Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3] Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle". Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God." Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here. Benefits include: mastery of the Bible, which is priceless mastery of the English language, which is valuable thorough understanding of the differences in Bible translations, particularly the historically important King James Version benefiting from activity that no public school would ever allow; a Conservative Bible could become a text for public school courses liberals will oppose this effort, but they will have to read the Bible to criticize this, and that will open their minds How long would this project take? There are about 8000 verses in the New Testament. At a careful rate of translating about four verses an hour, it would take one person 2000 hours, or about one year working full time on the project. The rest here: http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
cell phone info
|
|
Dang not this again. Always check the facts about emails, other wise you just help spread false information. I've gotten at least 3 of these over the past year or so, just google the topic and you'll find out pretty quickly what is bs and what is'nt. Pranksters depend on internet newbies to believe what they read in emails.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/04/dnc.shtm The Truth about Cell Phones and the National Do Not Call Registry If you’ve received an e-mail telling you that your cell phone is about to be assaulted by telemarketing calls as a result of a new cell phone number database, rest assured that this is not the case. Telemarketing to cell phone numbers has always been illegal in most cases and will continue to be so. In response to recent e-mail campaigns urging consumers to place their cell phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission issue this advisory to give consumers the facts. One e-mail making the rounds says: “JUST A REMINDER...In a few weeks, cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will start to receive sale calls. YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS... To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone: 888/382-1222. It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of your time. It blocks your number for five (5) years. PASS THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS...” Another version claims: “The Federal Trade Commission has set up a "do not call" list. It is called a cell phone registry. To be included on the "do not call" list, you must call from the number you wish to register.” Here’s what you need to know about the National Do Not Call Registry program: FCC regulations prohibit telemarketers from using automated dialers to call cell phone numbers. Automated dialers are standard in the industry, so most telemarketers are barred from calling consumers on their cell phones without their consent. The federal government does not maintain a national cell phone registry. Personal cell phone users have always been able to add their numbers to the National Do Not Call Registry — the same Registry consumers use to register their land lines — either online at www.donotcall.gov or by calling toll-free 1-888-382-1222 from the telephone number they wish to register. Registrations become effective within 31 days of signing up and are active for five years. There is no cut-off date or deadline for registrations. Business-to-business calls are not covered under the Registry. For More Information To learn more about the National Do Not Call Registry and the rules that enforce it, visit the FTC at www.ftc.gov or the FCC at www.fcc.gov. For more information about a planned “wireless 411” directory, visit http://www.iq411.com/wireless411/index.shtml. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_porkerofthemonth Seven Nutty Senators Supporting ACORN are CAGW’s September Porkers of the Month Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named the seven senators who voted on Monday, September 14 to continue sending tax dollars for housing and community development programs to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) its September Porkers of the Month. The seven senators are Roland Burris (D-Ill.), Robert Casey (D-Pa.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). The 83-7 vote to cut off funding for the group in the fiscal year 2010 Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act came on the heels of the release of explosive video footage of ACORN’s employees in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Brooklyn, giving questionable legal and tax advice to filmmaker James O'Keefe and a female friend who posed as a pimp and a prostitute. ACORN’s employees gave guidance on how to illegally shelter income, mislead the Internal Revenue Service, and obfuscate the ages and immigration status of underage girls who were going to be used as prostitutes in a make-believe brothel. All of the videos can be viewed at http://www.biggovernment.com/. So, Sanders wants to keep wasting money on fraud, embezzlement, prostitution, tax evasion and more while taking on government waste? While I agree with cutting government waste, Sanders could not bring himself to cut funding for HIS pork of choice -- the fraudulent ACORN! I believe you missed his point entirely. If you are going to go after fraud and waste, you don't go after just Acorn and leave those that steal billions more on a 'yearly' basis, turning a blind eye to those that do far worse and steal 'far more money' because they are seen as necessary. And you don't cut off funding until Acorn has been proven negligent in a court of law. The Acorn thing is all political at this point and we all know why. And morally you don't cut off people dependent on their service because some politicians want to wear Acorn as an badge. It amuses me that some folk scream about the law but would over look the law to bring down an organization they despise for their own agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Ethnic Cleansing in LA
|
|
I can't imagine having so much hate and anger inside. It's incomprehensible to us. And, they're not racist. To be racist would imply that they would stop the violence once the targeted group was removed. But, they wouldn't stop. If they killed everyone in a particular group today, tomorrow they would find another group and attack for some perceived injustice. And, then they would turn on each other. There's no racism involved. There's just hate. Soo...they hate the world? St. Louis has a bad area with gangs. If there weren't any gangs, St. Louis would have a low murder rate. The gangs shooting each other brings up our murder rates. Gangs should have been adressed decades ago, if cops are afraid to go into those areas, they should find people that aren't afraid and do something about them. There are individuals in those areas that are trying to get kids turned away from gangs, but they can't accomplish that alone. If the gangs know that the people in the area and the cops are afraid of them that just gives them more power. The cops are not physically afraid of the gangs. If it was just a "go in there and get them" situation, it would not be a problem. However, the cops are at a disadvantage as they have a lot of rules placed on them. The gang members have no rules. A cop can lose his job, get sued or even end up in jail for doing something wrong. It's just not as easy as you think. The bad guys shoot at the cops and they don't care if they hit innocent people. A cop can't do that. If he hits an innocent person he has to deal with that professionally and privately. And, if you cause an injury during an arrest you can bet you'll be scrutinized by the DA's office, the police department and the defense attorney. It can be brutal. So, yeah, they're scared, but not for the reasons you think they are. Well I can understand that, but there has to be an answer, I just don't see anyone doing much about it, even back in the 70's when they could have had a better handle on it. It's been allowed to fester to the point that the gangs have all the power. Where are the incentives like the army uses with people in war zones. I dont' know the answer that is for sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Ethnic Cleansing in LA
|
|
I can't imagine having so much hate and anger inside. It's incomprehensible to us. And, they're not racist. To be racist would imply that they would stop the violence once the targeted group was removed. But, they wouldn't stop. If they killed everyone in a particular group today, tomorrow they would find another group and attack for some perceived injustice. And, then they would turn on each other. There's no racism involved. There's just hate. Soo...they hate the world? St. Louis has a bad area with gangs. If there weren't any gangs, St. Louis would have a low murder rate. The gangs shooting each other brings up our murder rates. Gangs should have been adressed decades ago, if cops are afraid to go into those areas, they should find people that aren't afraid and do something about them. There are individuals in those areas that are trying to get kids turned away from gangs, but they can't accomplish that alone. If the gangs know that the people in the area and the cops are afraid of them that just gives them more power. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Ethnic Cleansing in LA
|
|
can't be racism.. only whites are capable of racism. That's not true. I think that comment was made to make a point Did you make that comment? I know who did and I know why it was made It was made to dismiss one particular poster, about something she wasn't even suggesting. yeah but no sooner did I make that suggestion than she came in and posted to the exact effect that not only did I know she would but predicted.. it's almost a parody.. it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. funny how everyone knew exactly who I was talking about though... sees racism in everything except that which really is racism.. how ironic.. and to rose: 
No secret here, or wise predictions here either, the same people have piled on the same poster for the same reason before. It's not hard to see how certain people are reacted to repeatedly by the same people. She has never ever suggested what you accused her of. Ever. Though I have not always agreed some topics were racist where she did, she never once said only whites are capable of racism. And your sarcasm brought on the sarcasm of yet another poster who said: 'She doesn't have a point, just mindless banter!' also piling on the same poster. We do notice more than just the topic around here. But hey, that's what this forum has become, and why I stay clear a lot these days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Ethnic Cleansing in LA
|
|
I haven't been here to read it all. actually...you responded to her. but if you notice...I said I THINK that was the reason. Okay. I found that post. She was telling me something but she wasn't telling me what somebody else was thinking. no...she was telling you why he did it as reading his mind. I was the one that said "I think" does it really matter that I gave my opinion on it? geez people. LOL you are really cracking me up now, Rose. ''I know who did and I know why it was made'' No biggie, I just don't like seeing some get piled on for something she never said or suggested. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pssst, thought you agreed both sides are pretty good at the same thing, Rose? Have a change of heart tonight? not at all. not sure what is up with you tonight though. I was referring to a question I have asked several times in here that people seem to not want to answer. Please read the other posts to understand. I read the whole thread, Rose.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure why but this thread made me think of this clip. It is only a few seconds long. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM&NR=1 What is rich is that your comment would claim a knowledge of my education, ability to reason, politics, and my perspective of history. psst...it's the I'm right and your wrong theory 
Pssst, thought you agreed both sides are pretty good at the same thing, Rose? Have a change of heart tonight? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liberal, in modern politics, actually means totalitarian or progressive. They aren't interested in freedom, they want to take away your freedoms with which they don't agree. What car you drive, what food you eat, what news you watch, what radio programs you listen to. They want to involve themselves into your every day to day activity, because they don't care about you personally, they just want power. I've pretty much said that before myself. a lot of them seem to want freedom for all as long as it's what they believe in. My sister is (what I think)is a true liberal. she and I (I'm more conservative myself) both can see that others have the rights to things whether we agree with it or not, as long as it's legal. we both believe in the constitution and upholding that Exactly! Conservatives are for preserving our existing liberties, Liberals feel that more liberties are needed. They agree on making the changes in our existing framework. The progressives seek "change" by "remaking America". It's really a scary proposition. Don't let anyone fool you, silencing dissent will always be on the table while progressives are in charge. You really aught to have a good look at what conservatives want these days. If individuals want to control one part of your lives, individual conservatives want control of the other.. again, generalizations. I personally like change and am not afraid of it, though there are some changes I would not agree with, but that doesn't mean I will get my way either. I accept that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liberal, in modern politics, actually means totalitarian or progressive. They aren't interested in freedom, they want to take away your freedoms with which they don't agree. What car you drive, what food you eat, what news you watch, what radio programs you listen to. They want to involve themselves into your every day to day activity, because they don't care about you personally, they just want power. I've pretty much said that before myself. a lot of them seem to want freedom for all as long as it's what they believe in. Individuals on both sides can be accused of the very same thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya know...I see in these forums and in life things that are insane sometimes people wants to laugh at Bush-isms (I think they are funny too) but don't anyone dare speak of Obama-isms because then the excuses come out of the wood work instead of just laughing at those too people whine about Fox news but yet they use blatantly biased sources on the other side that seem to be ok as long as it is what they want to hear people talk about the right wingers, republicans, conservatives...whatever doing this and that....when the other side does the exact same thing!!!! but that seems to be ok I see nothing but hypocritical things a lot lately and if it wasn't so sad it would be funny That actually was the point I was trying to make with the movie clip ... and to add a little humor to the sad situation. I'm still waiting for some one to answer my question about who decides what I can listen to and what qualifies them to be that superior Liberal, in modern politics, actually means totalitarian or progressive. They aren't interested in freedom, they want to take away your freedoms with which they don't agree. What car you drive, what food you eat, what news you watch, what radio programs you listen to. They want to involve themselves into your every day to day activity, because they don't care about you personally, they just want power. Quit generalizing, I'm a liberal and I don't give a crap what you drive, what you eat, what you read or watch.. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
