What is going on in the US???!!!WTF

[EasyEJL]

actually i had to run and grab dinner i'll watch it later tho. I do know what the DSHEA is yes

 

[AM07]

actually i had to run and grab dinner i'll watch it later tho. I do know what the DSHEA is yes

It's all good. Just whenever you get the time, I just found it a really interesting video.

What she's talking about in that video is Codex Alimentarius, for those of you that want to do some more research.

 

[EasyEJL]

btw in a general sort of way I agree with the idea behind the portion of the DSHEA that defines supplements as something from food chain based items, not lab created compounds

 

[jarhead]

For those of you that want more and more regulation (I agree, there needs to be regulation to an extent, but not by the FDA), I highly suggest you watch this. It's a little long, but take about 45 minutes out of your night and watch this.

We're getting closer and closer to a society of complete government regulation.

Nutricide - Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs

wow. That is some f'd up stuff right there. It is a bit long but worth it.

 

[EasyEJL]

She is just another wacko with some axe of her own to grind. I've already caught here in one simple lie, in one of her more inflammatory comments. She makes the statement that the Codex requires all food to be irradiated. I decided to actually research that one, and its not true. I selected "frozen fish" to follow up on as it happens to be something I buy a lot of. I read through all the applicable freakin docs in the codex that apply to "Standard for Quick Frozen Blocks of Fish Fillets, Minced Fish Flesh and Mixtures of Fillets and Minced Fish Flesh" and followed all the applicable standards within to read them, and their dependent docs, and there is no requirement that the fish be irradiated.

Another simple lie of hers is that there are only 13 or whatever the number is of vitamins allowed. Here is the specific verbiage of this

Vitamin and mineral food supplements should contain vitamins/provitamins and minerals
whose nutritional value for human beings has been proven by scientific data and whose status as
vitamins and minerals is recognised by FAO and WHO.

So the Codex gives the authority for what vitamins + minerals are acceptable to the WHO, no limitation of how many or what they are, that is the WHOs responsibility.

I don't know what her motives are, but 2 easily discernable lies mean that I would not count on anything at all she said being true.

 

[Dr Packenwood]

when a person starts with "nothing i'm about to tell you is exaggerated" I assume that everything they say from that point forwards is exaggeration.

What about when someone starts with "Well I must tell you something.....I'm Chris Hanson from NBC's Dateline.":blink:

 

[jarhead]

She is just another wacko with some axe of her own to grind. I've already caught here in one simple lie, in one of her more inflammatory comments. She makes the statement that the Codex requires all food to be irradiated. I decided to actually research that one, and its not true. I selected "frozen fish" to follow up on as it happens to be something I buy a lot of. I read through all the applicable freakin docs in the codex that apply to "Standard for Quick Frozen Blocks of Fish Fillets, Minced Fish Flesh and Mixtures of Fillets and Minced Fish Flesh" and followed all the applicable standards within to read them, and their dependent docs, and there is no requirement that the fish be irradiated.

It's not in the sections for individual foods because ALL foods are to comply with their hygeine standard code which requires being irradiated.

Another simple lie of hers is that there are only 13 or whatever the number is of vitamins allowed. Here is the specific verbiage of this



So the Codex gives the authority for what vitamins + minerals are acceptable to the WHO, no limitation of how many or what they are, that is the WHOs responsibility.

I don't know what her motives are, but 2 easily discernable lies mean that I would not count on anything at all she said being true

I see no lie here. Yes the WHO has that responsibility, but the agency they use to decide it and set those standards is codex. It's a catch22. And you're ignoring the fact that in the section you quote it limits supplements to those "proven by scientific data" and recognised by the who. They have final say what is "proven" based on their own risk assessment and scientific standards. Which means that a trade organization is deciding what is safe for you to put into your body. If that is not a conflict of interest I don't know what is. In the context of the rest of the document, the statement you quoted takes on a different meaning. I'm curious, out of all the info in the codex website and their standards, nothing alarmed you? Especially with the topic concerning possible tainted supplements. The codex website has a table to look up acceptable amounts of contaminants in foods. Among them that are acceptable are the pesticides that were highly toxic and previously banned.

 

[strategicmove]

when a person starts with "nothing i'm about to tell you is exaggerated" I assume that everything they say from that point forwards is exaggeration.

Nothing I'm about to tell you is exaggerated: this thread "rocks"!

 

[neoborn]

when a person starts with "nothing i'm about to tell you is exaggerated" I assume that everything they say from that point forwards is exaggeration.

It's funny I do the same thing, like when you said "possibly trenbolone" I instantly thought "what a bunch of bullsh!t" and "proof" or even "e-drama at it's finest", it's weird ....you know?

 

[EasyEJL]

It's not in the sections for individual foods because ALL foods are to comply with their hygeine standard code which requires being irradiated.

I read that as well, and it does not require that from anything I can see. The frozen fish document mention the hygeine code in its dependencies. Point to the specific document where it does say that if there is one.

I see no lie here. Yes the WHO has that responsibility, but the agency they use to decide it and set those standards is codex. It's a catch22. And you're ignoring the fact that in the section you quote it limits supplements to those "proven by scientific data" and recognised by the who. They have final say what is "proven" based on their own risk assessment and scientific standards. Which means that a trade organization is deciding what is safe for you to put into your body.

The codex specifies that it is the WHO that makes the decision on what are acceptable vitamins, not the Codex itself. That includes the proof by scientific data. So the WHO is now a trade organization?

If that is not a conflict of interest I don't know what is. In the context of the rest of the document, the statement you quoted takes on a different meaning. I'm curious, out of all the info in the codex website and their standards, nothing alarmed you? Especially with the topic concerning possible tainted supplements. The codex website has a table to look up acceptable amounts of contaminants in foods. Among them that are acceptable are the pesticides that were highly toxic and previously banned.

Well, I couldn't read all the specs, I don't have that sort of free time on my hands this year That was why I specifically chose the frozen fish one, as its something I use really frequently and it matters to me.

I'll maybe take a look at the contaminants later. I do know that to some extent that the use of pesticides that were previously banned in the US have been allowed for 3rd world countries just for cost purposes. What we find affordable here in terms of food doesn't work out so well for venezuela where the national income average is less than 10% of the US or most developed nations. Suddenly telling them they can't have fruits or vegetables doesn't work so well, and will only in the end lead to war as they get clipped out of trade. The 3rd world nations outnumber the developed nations in terms of population by a large margin.

That is a definite problem with a worldwide standard in general for anything, as countries with different overall income levels would find different costs acceptable. The Indian Tata (the $2000 car) wouldnt' be found acceptable in terms of safety or emissions here in the USA.

 

[EasyEJL]

It's funny I do the same thing, like when you said "possibly trenbolone" I instantly thought "what a bunch of bullsh!t" and "proof" or even "e-drama at it's finest", it's weird ....you know?

Right, but I didn't make the up front claim that "none of what I am saying is exaggerated, none of what I am saying is lies, none of what I am saying is meant to be inflammatory" either

 

[strategicmove]

This thread will run another twenty pages, as a minimum, at this rate. Keep it up.

 

[jarhead]

I read that as well, and it does not require that from anything I can see. The frozen fish document mention the hygeine code in its dependencies. Point to the specific document where it does say that if there is one.





The codex specifies that it is the WHO that makes the decision on what are acceptable vitamins, not the Codex itself. That includes the proof by scientific data. So the WHO is now a trade organization?





Well, I couldn't read all the specs, I don't have that sort of free time on my hands this year That was why I specifically chose the frozen fish one, as its something I use really frequently and it matters to me.

I'll maybe take a look at the contaminants later. I do know that to some extent that the use of pesticides that were previously banned in the US have been allowed for 3rd world countries just for cost purposes. What we find affordable here in terms of food doesn't work out so well for venezuela where the national income average is less than 10% of the US or most developed nations. Suddenly telling them they can't have fruits or vegetables doesn't work so well, and will only in the end lead to war as they get clipped out of trade. The 3rd world nations outnumber the developed nations in terms of population by a large margin.

That is a definite problem with a worldwide standard in general for anything, as countries with different overall income levels would find different costs acceptable. The Indian Tata (the $2000 car) wouldnt' be found acceptable in terms of safety or emissions here in the USA.

I think you already had your mind made up before you watched the video but for the sake of discussion and lengthening the thread for startegicmove:thumbsup:- as far as the fish thing goes I'm in the same boat as you for time. It's ambiguosley worded (as are many things in the requirements) in a couple different sections and I don't have time to look them up again. As far as the vitamins, your missing the point of the paragraph you quoted. It allows vitamins based on if the codex decides they are nutritionally valuable to humans. The part you quoted is the second half of that sentence. The WHO only RECOGNIZES them AS vitamins/minerals. The decision on if they are allowed in products(or acceptable) is up to codex. It's like contract negotiation, sometimes the small words (and,or, shall, may) change a sentence completely. As far as pesticides, for one ,3rd world countries are irrelevant. MANY countries banned the pop's besides us, yet the codex supercedes our own laws and allows them to be imported and used in OUR country. The woman on the video is passionate, and animated sure, by i don't think calling her a liar is fair. Besides the issues we've discussed, the gist of what she says is in plain sight and has plenty to be alarmed about in my opinion.

 

[EasyEJL]

I still disagree what she says isn't in plain sight. You mention yourself that things are ambiguously worded as to irradiation, and I can't find any reference other than plastic packaging for frozen goods must be able to withstand irradiation without heat damage - which makes total sense for being able to microwave defrost them.

Again i'm quoting this

Vitamin and mineral food supplements should contain vitamins/provitamins and minerals
whose nutritional value for human beings has been proven by scientific data and whose status as
vitamins and minerals is recognised by FAO and WHO.

note also the wording is SHOULD not MUST. this is not some horrifying "we deny all supplements except 13 we approve" as the harbinger of doom stated in the video

I'm not placing the burden on you to show this, but you would think in her healthfreedomusa site that she would have in some easy readable spot direct references to where in the codex any of these spurious claims actually exist. They are a code of regulations, strictly numbered and labeled. If it is so "simply true" as she states, why is there just rhetoric in her site and articles, and no direct references?

Also in the video her statement that "flouride has no medical benefit and is only used to make the population complacent" is a joke as well. There is plenty of clinically proven medical data showing that flouride does prevent caries, and I can't imagine how you can call the US crime rates indicative of a "complacent population".

 

[maynehood171]

to me there is nothing wrong with this. Who here wants to take supplements that aren't tested by the manufacturer, are put together in a facility that doesn't need to be checked ever by an outside authority, and by a mom and pop operation who if it happens they mislabel something or cross contaminate don't have enough money to sue to be able to cover your medical costs?

I know I don't. I think this sort of thing is a good idea.

I thought they were going to require these company's to provide evidence of supplements effectiveness in tests/studies? Thought I read that somewhere? Or did I miss that in the article? :wtf:

 

[EasyEJL]

I thought they were going to require these company's to provide evidence of supplements effectiveness in tests/studies? Thought I read that somewhere? Or did I miss that in the article? :wtf:

that may be what the author of the inflammatory article implied, however it is not what it is stated in the FDA ruling. It is testing for quality control purposes - to prove that the ingredients and amounts as stated on the label are what is in the product. The specific ruling is all about manufacturing process, and guaranteeing that what you say the product is accurately describes the product. They can still sell snake oil

I searched the ruling for every instance of effective. The only one where it even mentions a product being effective is this

We did not propose to require any specific statements. We stated
that an unqualified statement such as ``produced in compliance with
dietary supplement current good manufacturing practice requirements,''
without more, could suggest a product may be safe and effective or
somehow superior to other dietary supplement products that are subject
to the same CGMP requirements (id.). Further, we stated that such a
statement would likely be considered misleading by us under sections
403(a)(1) and 201 of the act, but that including language clarifying
to consumers that all dietary supplements must be manufactured in
compliance with CGMP requirements and that such compliance does not
mean that the dietary supplement is safe or effective may be a way to
cure that unqualified statement (id.). Thus, we are not prohibiting
voluntary statements on the dietary supplement label, provided that
such statements are truthful and not misleading.

There is no change to the fact that the fda will not require proof of effectiveness so long as labeling statements are truthful and not misleading. Claiming that Saw Palmetto reduces risk of prostate cancer on the bottle would require that sort of evidence. Selling saw palmetto without that claim on the bottle would not.

 

[jarhead]

I still disagree what she says isn't in plain sight. You mention yourself that things are ambiguously worded as to irradiation, and I can't find any reference other than plastic packaging for frozen goods must be able to withstand irradiation without heat damage - which makes total sense for being able to microwave defrost them.

Again i'm quoting this




note also the wording is SHOULD not MUST. this is not some horrifying "we deny all supplements except 13 we approve" as the harbinger of doom stated in the video

I'm not placing the burden on you to show this, but you would think in her healthfreedomusa site that she would have in some easy readable spot direct references to where in the codex any of these spurious claims actually exist. They are a code of regulations, strictly numbered and labeled. If it is so "simply true" as she states, why is there just rhetoric in her site and articles, and no direct references?

Also in the video her statement that "flouride has no medical benefit and is only used to make the population complacent" is a joke as well. There is plenty of clinically proven medical data showing that flouride does prevent caries, and I can't imagine how you can call the US crime rates indicative of a "complacent population".

What I meant was in plain sight was the fact that a trade organization has an influence over matters of health. Also having one body set guidelines as you agreed, is bad. This also violates our sovereignty by superceding or eliminating (due to compliance) our own laws which frankly only the American people should have a say in. The banned pop's that are now acceptable have an easily viewed chart that depicts residue allowances. And while flouride does appear to provide dental benefits in delaying tooth decay it also has negative effects on the development of young teeth as well as having highly debatable statistics compared to test with non flouridated water. It also has been shown to cause dental flourosis (which is a result of chronic flouride poisoning) and results in higher dental costs than nonflouridated areas. It is a toxic waste product. Ingesting a toxin cannot be beneficial longterm. MEDICALLY flouride has no known benefits when ingested. It's entire use has been a huge debate since it started. Which is I guess another topic altogether so off the soapbox I go. And while I don't know the validity of it causing complacency, which is a new one to me as well- I will say that 25% voter turnout is a good example of complacency. (but I won't hook my wagon to that whole idea with flouride).
The bottom line for me I guess, is that just the things i listed are enough for me to be alarmed and firmly against codex.

 

[EasyEJL]

I'm going to kick it up a notch here for comedys sake. I'll give the first person who can find the reference to the codex requiring irradtion for all foods in the Codex's own docs their choice of a bottle of Drive, IGF-2, or a tub of black cherry ragnarok. not some third party stating it, the actual codex doc that requires it. They are all there on the codex website. So i'm putting my supplements where my mouth is.

 

[jarhead]

I'm going to kick it up a notch here for comedys sake. I'll give the first person who can find the reference to the codex requiring irradtion for all foods in the Codex's own docs their choice of a bottle of Drive, IGF-2, or a tub of black cherry ragnarok. not some third party stating it, the actual codex doc that requires it. They are all there on the codex website. So i'm putting my supplements where my mouth is.

What I find amusing is that early on in this thread and throughout your stated cause for concern was POSSIBLE contaminants in supplements. Yet an agency and directive that clearly authorizes the use of known toxins and toxic procedures ,in our food supply no less, is ignored or defended by you. Your main reason for concern you stated was your kids health and rightly so. But I would guess your kids consume much more food (which WILL contain contaminants) than supplements (which could POSSIBLY contain contaminants). You photoshopped the black suit and tie and FDA badge out of your avatar didn't you?:stick::lol:

 

[EasyEJL]

Anything is reasonably safe at a reasonable quantity. That quantity is compound dependent of course. Again those pesticides aren't required, but allowed. Companies will be able to use the more expensive ones, and there will be pesticide free products just like there is now. There will be a premium on those products vs the others sure.

I'll extend my offer on forced irradiation to include her statement of forced Monsanto Growth Hormone usage on all cows for meat or dairy.

 

[maynehood171]

There is no change to the fact that the fda will not require proof of effectiveness so long as labeling statements are truthful and not misleading. Claiming that Saw Palmetto reduces risk of prostate cancer on the bottle would require that sort of evidence. Selling saw palmetto without that claim on the bottle would not.

...good point

 

[jarhead]

Anything is reasonably safe at a reasonable quantity. That quantity is compound dependent of course. Again those pesticides aren't required, but allowed. Companies will be able to use the more expensive ones, and there will be pesticide free products just like there is now. There will be a premium on those products vs the others sure.

I'll extend my offer on forced irradiation to include her statement of forced Monsanto Growth Hormone usage on all cows for meat or dairy.

So you're ok with an outside trade organization superceding US law banning pesticides deemed harmful? 9 Pesticides that were found harmful enough that they are unacceptable in any quantities?

 

[EasyEJL]

So you're ok with an outside trade organization superceding US law banning pesticides deemed harmful? 9 Pesticides that were found harmful enough that they are unacceptable in any quantities?

I'm not sure that I'm ok with it, but to be a part of a world economy I can't see much way around it. We can't tell venezuela that they have to grow their fruits and vegetables and only use a pesticide that raises the costs so high they can't afford to eat them. I'd really have to look at the specifics. And again, as a consumer so long as I know what is used, I can choose to buy only foods that don't use those.

What agency is it that found those pesticides unacceptable at any quantity? Is it that horrible corrupt FDA that only does things to preserve pharmaceutical and big business profits and not for human safety?

 

[jarhead]

I'm not sure that I'm ok with it, but to be a part of a world economy I can't see much way around it. We can't tell venezuela that they have to grow their fruits and vegetables and only use a pesticide that raises the costs so high they can't afford to eat them. I'd really have to look at the specifics. And again, as a consumer so long as I know what is used, I can choose to buy only foods that don't use those.

What agency is it that found those pesticides unacceptable at any quantity? Is it that horrible corrupt FDA that only does things to preserve pharmaceutical and big business profits and not for human safety?

Ah, you almost got me, but no it was the EPA.:lol:

 

[Iron Warrior]

I think there does need to be more regulation because I too wouldn't want to unknowingly ingest rat poison. I know there are companies which have a cGMP seal on their products and I try to usually buy from them but I really don't know what that seal does as far as my protection goes. I think this cGMP compliance has something to do with NNFA. If this is not enough then it would be imperative that the supplement industry create a quality control branch that assures label claims are being met and that no toxins are in the supplements.

I remeber there was a little fiasco with Vitamin Shoppe having high levels of lead (IIRC) in their multi's and this is enough to stop me from buying their house brand products.

 

[Brian5225]

Easy, are you talking about all produce being irradiated, or all foods as in cereal, bread, and other dry foods as well?

 

[EasyEJL]

The claim the woman who "isn't exaggerating" makes is that all food is required to be irradiated. i'm happy to give a bottle of whatever I mentioned above to anyone who can find any reference to ANYTHING requiring irradiation. Not just something allowing it, but requiring it.

 

[strategicmove]

Unsubb'd!

 

[bioman]

The American Botanical Council, to which I am a member, approves of this action by the FDA. Their reasoning is that the herbal industry as a whole has been badly damaged by unscrupulous companies that put out under dosed or just plain bad product. How will people know/experience how great herbs, minerals and vitamins can be if they never take quality stuff?

I, more or less, agree with their line of thinking on this matter though I'm reluctant to give FDA any more power than they currently have.

 

[sbv]

Further proof that we're ruled by a bunch of incompetent and spineless fags who will sell their soul to satan for votes. They do everything in the name of the children and all their arguments start with "what about the children ?" That's a big keyword that they're about to spew some massive amounts of BS at the people. They ought to stop trying to save us from ourselves. I hope McCain never even gets to be the Vice President.

Enjoy your woman-ran politics. You want women to vote?

Reap what you sow.

 

[AM07]

Enjoy your woman-ran politics. You want women to vote?

Reap what you sow.

I don't think any rational person in today's society would deny women the right to vote.

 

[sbv]

I don't think any rational person in today's society would deny women the right to vote.

I find it funny how you word that, considering that no person is anywhere close to having the power to deny women the right to vote anyway.

Of course women's right to vote is here to stay, and it's a big part of why politics are going to remain full of ****. Women think with their hearts, not with their brains. All sorts of demagogy work on them.

 

[jarhead]

I find it funny how you word that, considering that no person is anywhere close to having the power to deny women the right to vote anyway.

Of course women's right to vote is here to stay, and it's a big part of why politics are going to remain full of ****. Women think with their hearts, not with their brains. All sorts of demagogy work on them.

Wow, what an incredibly advanced way of thinking. So, how ARE things in the 1800's?

 

[sbv]

Wow, what an incredibly advanced way of thinking. So, how ARE things in the 1800's?

I don't think based on what my era thinks, I think based on what I observe and hear. This is one thing that has always separated the geniuses from the average joes who just go with the flow.

No intelligent guy would even question the fact that women are easier to influence. Anybody here works in sales? I almost did back in my late teens when I was looking for a part time job. One of the first things I was taught during the "training day" is that women were the main target : it's a lot more likely to get them to buy the stuff.

As far as I can see this applies to politics just as well. A demagogic speech by a politician will influence a hell of a lot more women than men. Don't kid yourself, when a politician speaks about "the kids", men are not the target audience.

Ask any good strategist in the marketing/sales/politics field of work and they'll tell you the same thing, guaranteed.

 

[EasyEJL]

comically, i've said the same thing about women in the workplace wages really are determined by supply vs demand, so mostly what women entering the workplace did was reduce everyones pay.

 

[AM07]

I don't think based on what my era thinks, I think based on what I observe and hear. This is one thing that has always separated the geniuses from the average joes who just go with the flow.

No intelligent guy would even question the fact that women are easier to influence. Anybody here works in sales? I almost did back in my late teens when I was looking for a part time job. One of the first things I was taught during the "training day" is that women were the main target : it's a lot more likely to get them to buy the stuff.

As far as I can see this applies to politics just as well. A demagogic speech by a politician will influence a hell of a lot more women than men. Don't kid yourself, when a politician speaks about "the kids", men are not the target audience.

Ask any good strategist in the marketing/sales/politics field of work and they'll tell you the same thing, guaranteed.

I do agree with you that they are easier to convince. It's why so many women are voting for Hillary or Obama, they believe all the bull**** spewing from their mouths.

 

[jarhead]

I don't think based on what my era thinks, I think based on what I observe and hear. This is one thing that has always separated the geniuses from the average joes who just go with the flow.

No intelligent guy would even question the fact that women are easier to influence. Anybody here works in sales? I almost did back in my late teens when I was looking for a part time job. One of the first things I was taught during the "training day" is that women were the main target : it's a lot more likely to get them to buy the stuff.

As far as I can see this applies to politics just as well. A demagogic speech by a politician will influence a hell of a lot more women than men. Don't kid yourself, when a politician speaks about "the kids", men are not the target audience.

Ask any good strategist in the marketing/sales/politics field of work and they'll tell you the same thing, guaranteed.

None of this makes it right. You are applying a stereotype to ALL women. Just because one person perceives something about a group of people doesn't mean it applies to all the people in that group. That applies to race, religion, and gender. All (insert ridiculous stereotype warning)Muslims aren't terrorists, all Blacks aren't criminals, all whites didn't own plantations, all asians aren't ninjas, and all women don't make all decisions based on emotions. This is America-all people deserve equal rights, including the right to vote.

 

[Dr Packenwood]

...all asians aren't ninjas...

WHAAAA??:blink:

 

[jarhead]

WHAAAA??:blink:

Yeah, it's true. Go figure. (hey, I said "ridiculous stereotype ahead")

 

[sbv]

None of this makes it right. You are applying a stereotype to ALL women. Just because one person perceives something about a group of people doesn't mean it applies to all the people in that group. That applies to race, religion, and gender. All (insert ridiculous stereotype warning)Muslims aren't terrorists, all Blacks aren't criminals, all whites didn't own plantations, all asians aren't ninjas, and all women don't make all decisions based on emotions. This is America-all people deserve equal rights, including the right to vote.

I'm not applying a stereotype to all women. What's so hard to understand about the concept of "on average"? The concept of taking a group and saying "not all members are that way, but many are".

It's not the first time I have a discussion like this on the internet... there are always people like you saying "WELL NOT ALL WOMEN ARE THAT WAY". I know, it doesn't matter. It's like saying "TIGERS ARE DANGEROUS??? THAT'S NOT TRUE, YOU'RE APPLYING A STEREOTYPE TO ALL TIGERS. TONY THE TIGER IS NOT DANGEROUS"

You can't be serious with your ridiculous examples. Terrorists, ninjas, plantations? Those are such tiny minorities, of course it's not right to call muslims terrorists.

im done now because i know from experience that these discussions go nowhere. page 100 you'd still be repeating the same stuff.

 

[LilPsychotic]

I don't think based on what my era thinks, I think based on what I observe and hear. This is one thing that has always separated the geniuses from the average joes who just go with the flow.

No intelligent guy would even question the fact that women are easier to influence. Anybody here works in sales? I almost did back in my late teens when I was looking for a part time job. One of the first things I was taught during the "training day" is that women were the main target : it's a lot more likely to get them to buy the stuff.

As far as I can see this applies to politics just as well. A demagogic speech by a politician will influence a hell of a lot more women than men. Don't kid yourself, when a politician speaks about "the kids", men are not the target audience.

Ask any good strategist in the marketing/sales/politics field of work and they'll tell you the same thing, guaranteed.

I think there is some merit to this argument. A lot of woman who are in my age bracket are, well lets just say out to lunch on most important issues. They are easily distracted by some Hollywood drug addict overdosing, over real issues going on in our country like us being invaded by Mexico. But they don't want to hear it. I love the line "Yeah, I'm gonna vote for her, 'bout time we had a woman President".

 

[jarhead]

I'm not applying a stereotype to all women. What's so hard to understand about the concept of "on average"? The concept of taking a group and saying "not all members are that way, but many are".

It's not the first time I have a discussion like this on the internet... there are always people like you saying "WELL NOT ALL WOMEN ARE THAT WAY". I know, it doesn't matter. It's like saying "TIGERS ARE DANGEROUS??? THAT'S NOT TRUE, YOU'RE APPLYING A STEREOTYPE TO ALL TIGERS. TONY THE TIGER IS NOT DANGEROUS"

You can't be serious with your ridiculous examples. Terrorists, ninjas, plantations? Those are such tiny minorities, of course it's not right to call muslims terrorists.

im done now because i know from experience that these discussions go nowhere. page 100 you'd still be repeating the same stuff.

You completely missed my point. Uh, didn't I say "ridiculous stereotype". I was being as ridiculous as your first post that started this whole thing. You know, when you said -

Enjoy your woman-ran politics. You want women to vote?

Reap what you sow

. So what exactly were you trying to say with that then, cause to me it sounds alot like you're against women voting. And yeah,100 pages from now I would still be disagreeing with that, so whatever.

 

[Dr Packenwood]

Yeah, it's true. Go figure. (hey, I said "ridiculous stereotype ahead")

Reminds me of the day when I was a kid, my dad told me he was Santa Claus.





To this day I still can't figure out where he hides his reindeer and sleigh.

 

[jarhead]

Reminds me of the day when I was a kid, my dad told me he was Santa Claus.

WHAAAA?!

 

[Brian5225]

Just gives an excuse to the old "I saw mommie kissing santa clause"