Jump to content


So, you think Republicans want you to drink poisoned water? Wrong, Democtats do!!!

Fluoride Democrats Poison Water Pesticide Nuclear Enrichment Penal Gland Calcification Lower IQ

45 replies to this topic

#1 *Dr. T. Waters~

  • Guest

Posted 07 August 2012 - 05:58 PM

So, you think Republicans want you to drink poisoned water, want the earth to fry from manmade global warming, cut down all the trees, and murder your unborn babies?
Think again, study after study, report after report, all research shows a disturbing trend, Democrats hate the average Joe Six-pack.
Take one subject, clean water, and you will find that the Democrats are pumping poison directly into your homes under the guise of making you healthier. It is another canard foisted upon the American public with absolutely no scientific evidence to prove any positive health benefits. Quite to the contrary, all evidence points that fluoride is a toxic poison that cripples tens of thousands of people yearly. A substance used in the manufacture of pesticides and the enrichment of nuclear fuels.
So who's to blame?
Democrats! That's right. I know it seems counter intuitive as Democrats are known for their "caring" about the health and welfare of Joe Six-pack, but that is a canard that they have been using since before most Americans were born. It is common knowledge today that when a Democrat accuses their opposition of doing something heinous and wrong, it is more likely they are the perpetrators of said deed or action.
Herd mentality.
Democrats rely on you, and every other Joe to react predictably, and together as a herd, the 99%, to parrot their mantra like the sheep on the renowned classical novel, Animal Farm. So is true of the supposed benefits of the toxic compound Sodium Fluoride. Over the years many non-establishment scientists and journalists have studied the effects this toxic compound has had on humans and animals alike. The disturbing commonality from these studies has shown that there is no positive benefit to the health, and in fact have shown that this additive is actually detrimental even in minute dosages.
Here is a classical article that can be used to fortify my opinion and give you the guidance to form your own opinion.

Fluoridation Revisited
by Murray N. Rothbard
by Murray N. Rothbard



This essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Yes, I confess: I'm a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby not for the first time risking placing myself in the camp of "right-wing kooks and fanatics." It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry "cancer" even more absurdly than the boy cried "Wolf," who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation's water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids' thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation's socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the "right-wing kook" image?

THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION

The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official "15-year" study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: "Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?" [Fall 1992], pp. 2628, 6366.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own "scientific study," by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by "popular demand" for fluoridation; as we shall see, the "popular demand" was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left's backing of fluoridation in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation's central organization of "anti-Communist liberals" (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation's establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the "father of public relations." Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called "The Original Spin Doctor" in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator's 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation "creeping socialism" and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation "in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan." (Bette Hileman, "Fluoridation of Water," Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the "mechanism which controls the public mind," which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..." And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, "either with or without their conscious cooperation," will "automatically influence" the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that "it is wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians." (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add "dentists" to the equation, and substitute "fluoride" for "bacon," and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation's reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as "universal fluoridation."

DOUBTS CUMULATE

Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone perhaps strengthening kiddies' teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides brittleness and cancer began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as "spurious."

Much More:

http://www.lewrockwe...rothbard85.html

#2 M7

    ProxyWhore Info Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,285 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:01 PM

Actually, I thing BOTH Dems & Reps want "US" all dead... AND to drink poluted water to get "US" there quicker...
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#3 *Guest~

  • Guest

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:07 PM

:fp:

You are phenomenally stupid.

#4 M7

    ProxyWhore Info Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,285 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:12 PM

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

:fp:

You are phenomenally stupid.
Think about it... All of the people in power drink nothing but fresh water, get fresh food and thee best medical care and that includes all of the House, Senate and people "In-The-Know"... What the REST of the people get is GMO Food, Drinking water that has all kinds of crap in it and sub-standard healthcare...

Look around you...
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#5 *Guest~

  • Guest

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:16 PM

View PostDr. T. Waters, on 07 August 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Democtats
Just what does Democtats mean? Is that like an Amberlamps or something similar?

#6 *Guest~

  • Guest

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:21 PM

View PostM7, on 07 August 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

:fp:

You are phenomenally stupid.
Think about it... All of the people in power drink nothing but fresh water, get fresh food and thee best medical care and that includes all of the House, Senate and people "In-The-Know"... What the REST of the people get is GMO Food, Drinking water that has all kinds of crap in it and sub-standard healthcare...

Look around you...

Characterizing it as a partisan issue is the stupid part.

The OP's implication is that electing Republicans = clean water, and nothing could be further from the truth!

#7 M7

    ProxyWhore Info Junkie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,285 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:22 PM

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

View PostM7, on 07 August 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

:fp:

You are phenomenally stupid.
Think about it... All of the people in power drink nothing but fresh water, get fresh food and thee best medical care and that includes all of the House, Senate and people "In-The-Know"... What the REST of the people get is GMO Food, Drinking water that has all kinds of crap in it and sub-standard healthcare...

Look around you...

Characterizing it as a partisan issue is the stupid part.

The OP's implication is that electing Republicans = clean water, and nothing could be further from the truth!
True, Point taken...
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#8 Urinal Cake

    PROXY WHORE 1000! EVERYONE GET ON YOUR KNEES AND...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,868 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 06:25 PM

You have nothing so bring out your shit, one of these shit eaters will love it.

Herb comes to mind. :fp:

Posted Image


#9 *Guest~

  • Guest

Posted 07 August 2012 - 07:04 PM

The OP said nothing about supporting or voting for republicans. I don't see any advocacy for voting for anyone. I do see advocacy for clean water though and some wordy thinks that suggest what I already know, fluoride is poison. Did anyone read the post, or did you read Dems and Reps and convulsed all knee jerky? Kinda like the herd thingy posted?
:cowboyfp:

#10 Urinal Cake

    PROXY WHORE 1000! EVERYONE GET ON YOUR KNEES AND...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,868 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:05 PM

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

The OP said nothing about supporting or voting for republicans. I don't see any advocacy for voting for anyone. I do see advocacy for clean water though and some wordy thinks that suggest what I already know, fluoride is poison. Did anyone read the post, or did you read Dems and Reps and convulsed all knee jerky? Kinda like the herd thingy posted?
:cowboyfp:

Crowds flock to Virgin 'miracle' tree in New Jersey

Posted Image


#11 H.T. Flouncerton

    ICU when you sleep

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,043 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:09 PM

UC would eat a shit sandwich if he thought it contained democrat DNA!!!

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#12 *Guest~

  • Guest

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:40 PM

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

The OP said nothing about supporting or voting for republicans. I don't see any advocacy for voting for anyone. I do see advocacy for clean water though and some wordy thinks that suggest what I already know, fluoride is poison. Did anyone read the post, or did you read Dems and Reps and convulsed all knee jerky? Kinda like the herd thingy posted?
:cowboyfp:

If you didn't see partisan advocacy in the OP, you're either blind, stupid or both.

#13 *Guest~

  • Guest

Posted 07 August 2012 - 08:41 PM

View PostHerb Cake, on 07 August 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

UC would eat a shit sandwich if he thought it contained democrat DNA!!!

You'd eat one if Glen Beck told you it was peanut butter!

#14 *Dr. T. Waters~

  • Guest

Posted 07 August 2012 - 10:19 PM

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

The OP said nothing about supporting or voting for republicans. I don't see any advocacy for voting for anyone. I do see advocacy for clean water though and some wordy thinks that suggest what I already know, fluoride is poison. Did anyone read the post, or did you read Dems and Reps and convulsed all knee jerky? Kinda like the herd thingy posted?
:cowboyfp:

If you didn't see partisan advocacy in the OP, you're either blind, stupid or both.


Please enlighten my on my Bias?
I posted an informative post about the origins of how Dems evoke a straw man argument to poison the population. It wasn't the Reps that are doing it, though they certainly have done nothing to prevent it. I could continue with more evidence that Dems do plenty more heinous actions that contribute to a lower quality of life and are more inclined to pass legislation which is detrimental to the environment. All the while, their water carriers point at Reps with unfounded smears. It doesn't wash their hands of their complacency. It is hard for the opposition to argue that they don't want dirty water, air, or a clean environment when you have had in this country for not less than 60+ years of a media complex that is in bed with the Fabian Progressive agenda. This gaggle of hypocrites will point at the opposition and set up their straw dog arguments, that if you are against this legislation, then you must want dirty water, or dirty air, or you're a racist, ad nauseam. The Fabian Progressives of which both parties are invested in and is sucking the life out of our country, turning it into a third world dictatorship beholden to the international banking cartels.So, you may think I am being partisan, but I truly would vote for anybody who will turn this ship around.

#15 *Guest~

  • Guest

Posted 07 August 2012 - 10:26 PM

View PostDr. T. Waters, on 07 August 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

View PostGuest, on 07 August 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

The OP said nothing about supporting or voting for republicans. I don't see any advocacy for voting for anyone. I do see advocacy for clean water though and some wordy thinks that suggest what I already know, fluoride is poison. Did anyone read the post, or did you read Dems and Reps and convulsed all knee jerky? Kinda like the herd thingy posted?
:cowboyfp:

If you didn't see partisan advocacy in the OP, you're either blind, stupid or both.


Please enlighten my on my Bias?
I posted an informative post about the origins of how Dems evoke a straw man argument to poison the population. It wasn't the Reps that are doing it, though they certainly have done nothing to prevent it. I could continue with more evidence that Dems do plenty more heinous actions that contribute to a lower quality of life and are more inclined to pass legislation which is detrimental to the environment. All the while, their water carriers point at Reps with unfounded smears. It doesn't wash their hands of their complacency. It is hard for the opposition to argue that they don't want dirty water, air, or a clean environment when you have had in this country for not less than 60+ years of a media complex that is in bed with the Fabian Progressive agenda. This gaggle of hypocrites will point at the opposition and set up their straw dog arguments, that if you are against this legislation, then you must want dirty water, or dirty air, or you're a racist, ad nauseam. The Fabian Progressives of which both parties are invested in and is sucking the life out of our country, turning it into a third world dictatorship beholden to the international banking cartels.So, you may think I am being partisan, but I truly would vote for anybody who will turn this ship around.

If you believe that crap, you're not only partisan, you're a moron.