Kennedy was extremely arrogant- the USA had dozens of nukes sitting on the Russian border in Turkey and Western Europe but he didn't want any in Cuba- the USA's back yard? Sort of a two faced hypocritical policy don't you think? Yes, I was alive- the whole period during the late 50's and all thru the 60's were tense and sometimes frightening.I thought Kennedy was an idiot then and still do. He sent people into Cuba to be killed and tortured in the Bay of Pigs invasion, refused to acknowledge that it was his plan and let the survivors languish in prision so that he didn't have to tell the world that he sent people in there to be slaughtered in an ill fated attempt to overthrow Castro. The majority of people WANTED Castro in power in Cuba. Almost all of those who didn't want to live under communism had left or were leaving to come to the USA. The rest supported Castro because they thought that communism would improve their lot.
grows1
JoinedPosts by grows1
-
14
Cuban Missile Crisis = How did you feel if you were alive at the time?
by AlanB ini've just watched a program on tv about the cuban missile crisis.. i just wondered how the average jw at the time felt while this was happenning?
or was the 1975 date firmly set by then?.
interesting aside, i must speak to my dad about this, ask him how he felt as he was 'out' at the time and did not come back until a few years later, i wonder how he felt having being brought up in it?
-
-
-
6
BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 1
by Marvin Shilmer in*** w69 6/1 327 godly respect for life and blood *** .
"if a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that mean simply that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins?
if a doctor told a patient to abstain from alcohol then that patient should avoid unhealthy alcohol consumption whether by mouth or any other means.
-
-
grows1
Gee, I don't see anything in there that says it's OK to take cow's blood into your veins, do you???????? In fact it just says BLOOD-no qualifier. Now Jehovah in His infinite wisdom could have surely seen the day that humans would be converting cow's blood for human use and stipulated NO HUMAN BLOOD but cow's blood is OK. But He didn't. So why is it ok to get tranfused with cow's blood now and not humans when the scriptures say that NO BLOOD could be used by WTBTS interpertation?????
-
14
Media Bias?????
by Yerusalyim ininteresting ap stories and their headlines yesterday.
notice that in the story on kerry, the headline is, "kerry calls for deeper tax cuts for the middle class" in the article i've highlighted the real news of that story.
which is that he said the gop was the most crooked lying group he's ever seen.
-
-
grows1
Gopher- I'm sorry that you will have to contend with cleaning up the disgusting mess that the previous generations have made for you. Because your generation and your children will be incredibly burdened by the financial burdens that MY generation is getting ready to pawn off on you and yours- social security, the national debt, and paying for all of the trade deficits that will eventually be demanded to be paid. We have ensured your slavery for generations to come once the bills all come due. And there will be a reckoning day. As for trade protectionism- for the first 120 years this country had stiff trade barriers, on purpose. The fledgling USA gov didn't want foreign competition for newly emerging industries and for our new growing nation. And during that 120 years we became the most powerful manufacturing nation the earth had ever seen. Because we DID have stiff import taxes ( those were the ONLY taxes allowed by our gov until 1913-those taxes were what our gov used to conduct itself with )EVERYTHING that was used here almost had to be made here. Wages were higher than anywhere else in the world and there were jobs for everyone who wanted jobs. In the 1940's the USA began lowering the tarriffs and during the early 50's decided to almost eliminate trade tarriffs so that imports from war devastated countries could help their economies. As these countries recovered they heavily and successfully lobbied to KEEP trade barriers down. We are now at a point that we no longer manufacture anything and Greenspan acknowledged this in 2001 when he was testifying before the senate. He matter of factly stated that we are now a service economy and no longer produce much anything except farm products. What he really meant to say was that we are now a servant (peon) enonomy. And all of the big LORDS and KINGS are sitting up there in the Congress and WH making sure that their incredible incomes, dividends, and stocks keep rolling on overseas while we have to fight over the few well paying jobs left. Think I'm off the track. G.W.Bush just last week wanted to reclassify hamburger flippers to heavy industry occupations so that things wouldn't continus to look so bad. Also NASDAQ is more than 90% NON manfacturing companies-web based and paper companies; NASDAQ the manufacturing thermometer for this country for I can't remember how long.
-
14
Media Bias?????
by Yerusalyim ininteresting ap stories and their headlines yesterday.
notice that in the story on kerry, the headline is, "kerry calls for deeper tax cuts for the middle class" in the article i've highlighted the real news of that story.
which is that he said the gop was the most crooked lying group he's ever seen.
-
-
grows1
Considering that Kerry has NEVER had a real job in his entire life,VIGOROUSLY supported and signed the NAFTA, WTO, GATT treaties AND supported the most favored nation status for Red China AND that he has taken more lobbysts money than ANY other senator and sells himself to the highest bidder, like the whoring political prostitute he is, I'd say that he has a lot of nerve trying to portray himself as a friend of labor. But not to worry, the duplicitous labor union big wig, who will never have to work another day in their whoring lives, are backing him 100%. They don't give a crap either if no one in this country ever works again either- their salaries are safe as union big wigs. American laborers have been sold out by BOTH political parties and don't seem to really care- they keep voting for the same old traitors of both parties. What workers don't realize is that both Dems and Repubs pols get most of their income from STOCKS and DIVIDENDS in companies that have moved lock, stock and barrell overseas, thereby maximizing profits(money for them) and minimizing cost(our use to be good wages that are now pennies in foreign lands). Do any of you really think that people and politicans like Kerry and Bush give a rats a.. if any of you ever have a good job ever again????? The lower your wages, the MORE MONEY THEY MAKE!!!! That is also why the power brokers in BOTH parties want the illegal immigrant flood over the border INTO this country to continue- these people take jobs and KEEP wages artifically low, not to mention the fact that they continue to vote in our elections,wholesale, thereby ensuring that we have an open border policy. We have been had and it is our own fault- we continue to vote for these whores.
-
20
Spoke my mind ...
by Vivamus inwell now, the lesson i learn today is that it feels *good* to speak your mind.
i entered in a battle of will and principles with a person who has none of those, and i came out feeling victorious.
no matter the consequences, no matter the financial loss, self-respect and the moral high ground have been saved for me.
-
-
grows1
Apparently I am the only one here who differs with you. I agree with your dad. It IS his money.How he chooses to use it is HIS business and his business alone. Where do you get off telling him what he should do with his hard earned dollars???? Don't want to pay him interest-fine go to any bank and get a loan from them. Bet you'll pay more than 10% interest. And I'll also bet they'll be a LOT more demanding in how you keep to your promise to repay them. I charged my youngest son interest to teach him something- NOTHING in life is free. I also set up a payment schedule and demanded payment when payment was due so that I could instill in him the FINANCIAL discipline he would need to make it in a commercial world where your failure to keep your word will cost you money-higher interest. I put ALL of the money in the bank for him. When he finished repaying the money I gave it ALL back, including the interest. He learned valuable lessons about honor, credit and committment. Maybe your father was trying to teach you the same. Regardless of the reasons why he did what he did I back him 100%. You are self centered, selfish and I wouldn't give you a dime if you were my daughter.
-
17
Eye of God
by bikerchic ini found this picture on the internet and thought i would share.
if nothing else it's a cool picture.. .
here is the story of how this was seen:.
-
-
grows1
I have been collecting them and putting them om CD ROM's and giving them as little gifts to my friends and family. They are so spectacularly beautiful they take your breath away. I have printed many out and posted at my place of work.
-
17
Eye of God
by bikerchic ini found this picture on the internet and thought i would share.
if nothing else it's a cool picture.. .
here is the story of how this was seen:.
-
-
grows1
Here is the Hubble site for the Hourglass Nebuls-The eye of God. If one of you could post the actual picture here you'd be doing me a favor. I don't know how. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1996/07/
-
17
Eye of God
by bikerchic ini found this picture on the internet and thought i would share.
if nothing else it's a cool picture.. .
here is the story of how this was seen:.
-
-
grows1
The Eye of GOD is the Hourglass Nebula, not the one you have posted. Go to the APOD site (Astronomy Picture of the Day) by using any search engine-Google. On the picture of the day there is an archive selection at the bottom of the page. Click on there and it will take you to EVERY pic NASA has posted as an APOD since beginning to post them. Go down the list and look for the Hour Glass Nebula. They are all georgeous. Have been collecting them for years.
-
6
Bush Admin stacking the deck
by Phantom Stranger inbush replaces advisers on cloning, medical issues
1 hour, 14 minutes ago
by maggie fox, health and science correspondent
-
-
grows1
It's his board. He can choose to appoint anyone he wants to. That's the trouble with the federal gov taking and assuming power beyond what the Constitution allows. The decisions are hailed as forward thinking and progressive as long as YOUR (I'm talking about both sides here, no one in particular) presidential choice sits in the president's chair. When someone we don't like makes choices we don't agree with it becomes a problem. It was never a problem when "our" man wielded the scepter of power. Stacking the deck has occurred as long as politicians have been alive. And as long as we are willing to tolerate Constitutional abuses when it furthers OUR cause and not some one elses it will continue.
-
22
Splenda, the low cal sugar substitute
by Sirius Dogma inmy roommate brought home this new ice cream last night, dreyers no sugar added, fat free chocolate fudge sweetened with splenda.
i was intrigued.
chocolate ice cream with no fat and low cal, how good could this taste?
-
-
grows1
Taken from a web site............. The Potential Dangers of Sucralose Sign Up for the Free Mercola.com Newsletter You want straight information on health topics that matter to YOU? Over 200,000 people, including 25,000 health professionals, receive the free Mercola.com e-newsletter twice a week, and 2 million Mercola.com pages are viewed every month to answer people's many health questions. Sign up for the newsletter now with your email address below -- it's free, and you'll quickly find it can really help you improve your health. Just Enter Your Email Address: Your Email Address: See What Others Are Saying About the Newsletter There's a new artificial sweetener on the block and it is already in a wide range of products (CLICK HERE to see list), some even sold in health food stores and manufactured by nutritionally-oriented companies. But is it proven safe? Does it provide any benefit to the public? Does it help with weight loss? Are there any long term human studies? Has it been shown to be safe for the environment? The answer to all of these questions is unfortunately a resounding NO. The artificial sweetener sucralose, which is sold under the name Splenda?, is one of the up-and-coming "next generation" of high-intensity sugar substitutes. It is non-caloric and about 600 times sweeter than sucrose (white table sugar), although it can vary from 320 tp 1,000 times sweeter, depending on the food application. The white crystalline powder tastes like a lot like sugar, but is more intense in its sweetness. How it is Manufactured Sucralose is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose). This involves chemically changing the structure of the sugar molecules by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups. History Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by researchers working under the auspices of Tate & Lyle Ltd., a large British sugar refiner. In 1980, Tate & Lyle arranged with Johnson & Johnson, the world's largest health care company, to develop sucralose. Johnson & Johnson formed McNeil Speciality Products Company in 1980 to commercialize sucralose. In 1991, Canada became the first nation to approve the use of sucralose. In April, 1998 the US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for sucralose to be used in a variety of food products (CLICK HERE for complete list of products using sucralose). Diet RC cola was the first US product with sucralose, introduced in May 1998. Sucralose is not yet approved for use in most European countries, where it is still under review. Safety Concerns Few human studies of safety have been published on sucralose. One small study of diabetic patients using the sweetener showed a statistically significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin (Hba1C), which is a marker of long-term blood glucose levels and is used to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. According to the FDA, "increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes. Research in animals has shown that sucralose can cause many problems in rats, mice, and rabbits, such as: * Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40% shrinkage) * Enlarged liver and kidneys. * Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus * Increased cecal weight * Reduced growth rate * Decreased red blood cell count * Hyperplasia of the pelvis * Extension of the pregnancy period * Aborted pregnancy * Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights * Diarrhea According to one source (Sucralose Toxicity Information Center), concerning the significant reduction in size of the thymus gland, "the manufacturer claimed that the sucralose was unpleasant for the rodents to eat in large doses and that starvation caused the shruken thymus glands. [Toxicologist Judith] Bellin reviewed studies on rats starved under experimental conditions, and concluded that their growth rate could be reduced by as much as a third without the thymus losing a significant amount of weight (less than 7 percent). The changes were much more marked in rats fed on sucralose. While the animals' growth rate was reduced by between 7 and 20 percent, their thymuses shrank by as much as 40 percent. (New Scientist 23 Nov 1991, pg 13)" A compound chemically related to sucrose, 6-chloro-deoxyglucose, is known to have anti-fertility and neurotoxic effects, although animal studies of sucralose have not shown these effects. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, "Sucralose was weakly mutagenic in a mouse lymphoma mutation assay." The FDA aslo reported many other tests as having "inconclusive" results. Just how few studies currently exist on sucralose is an issue. Endurance News provides the following table illustrating this fact: Sweetener # of Studies* Saccharin 2374 Aspartame 598 Cyclamates 459 Acesulfame-K 28 Sucralose 19 *Number of studies determined by MEDLINE search. In terms of safety, it is not just the original substance (sucralose) that one needs to worry about. As the FDA notes, "Because sucralose may hydrolyze in some food products...the resulting hydrolysis products may also be ingested by the consumer." Is There Any Long-Term Human Research? None. According to the Medical Letter on Drugs & Therapeutics, "Its long-term safety is unknown." According to the Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, the "Manufacturer's '100's of studies' (some of which show hazards) were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use." Is Sucralose Absorbed or Metabolized? Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary, sucralose is significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed. Plasma sucralose has been reported to have a half-life of anywhere from 2 to 5 hours in most studies, although the half-life in rabbits was found to be much longer at about 36 hours. About 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized. Both the metabolites and unchanged absorbed sucralose are excreted in urine. The absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract. According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is broken down "into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has not been adequtely tested in humans." Chlorinated Pesticides According to Consumers Research Magazine "Some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T., and accumulate in body fat. However, Johnson & Johnson emphasized that sucralose passes through the body unabsorbed." Of course, this assertion about not being absorbed is complete nonsense. As shown above, a substantial amount of sucralose is absorbed, so the argument is not valid. According to the HAD, "The manufacturer claims that the chlorine added to sucralose is similar to the chlorine atom in the salt (NaCl) molecule. That is not the case. Sucralose may be more like ingesting tiny amounts of chlorinated pesticides, but we will never know without long-term, independent human research." Contaminants The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%." While that may sound pretty pure, just what is in that other 2%? It turns out that the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as: * Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead) * Arsenic * Triphenilphosphine Oxide * Methanol * Chlorinated Disaccharides * Chlorinated Monosaccharide Although manufacturing guidelines do specify limits on these substances there is no guarantee that such limits will always be met. Environmental Concerns Despite the fact that a portion of sucralose is metabolized into some chemicals of questionable safety, a majory of the consumed sucralose is excreted unchanged in the feces and urine. While that may be good for the person using the product, it may not be so great for the environment. Although sucralose is being flushed down toilets wherever sucralose is approved for sale, what happens to it next is simply a matter for speculation. I know of no studies showing what happens to the chemical when the raw sewage is treated and then released back into the environment. * Does it remain stabile or react with other substances to form new compounds? * Is the sucralose or any resulting chemicals safe for the environment? * How will this chemical affect aquatic life such as fish, as well as other animals? * Will sucralose begin to appear in our water supplies, just as some drugs are beginning to be found. Of course, we will likely not know the answers to these questions for many years, if at all. One of the main reasons for this is that the FDA did not require an Environmental Impact Statement for sucralose, because in their words, "the action will not have a significant impact on the human environment." One study did find that sucralose is metabolized by microrganisms in both the water and soil (Labare 94). However, the ecological impact of this new chemical being introduced into the environment is unknown. Is There a Benefit for Consumers? According to Consumers' Research Magazine, sucralose provides some benefits for the corporations making and using it, but not for consumers. They state: But are such foods truly beneficial and desirable? Diabetics, weight watchers, and the general public might make better food choices by selecting basic, rather than highly processed foods; for example, apples, rather than turnovers; or plain, rather than sweetened, dairy foods. They note that non-caloric artificial sweeteners are not replacing, but rather supplementing conventional sweeteners. They note that as of 1990 Americans were consuming an average of 20 pounds (sugar sweetness equivalency) of artificial sweeteners, and as consumption of sugar-substitutes has risen so too has consumption of sugar. Does Sucralose Help with Weight Loss? According to Consumers' Research Magazine "There is no clear-cut evidence that sugar substitutes are useful in weight reduction. On the contrary, there is some evidence that these substances may stimulate appetite." Where is Sucralose Found? In the United States, the FDA has granted approval for the use of sucralose in 15 food and beverage categories: (For a complete list of products containing sucralose CLICK HERE) * Baked goods and baking mixes * Chewing gum * Confections and frostings * Fats and oils (salad dressings) * Fruit and water ices * Jams and jellies * Processed fruits and fruit juices * Sweet sauces, toppings and syrups * Beverages and beverage bases * Coffee and tea * Dairy product analogs * Frozen dairy desserts and mixes * Gelatins, puddings and fillings * Milk products * Sugar substitutes For a complete list of products containing sucralose CLICK HERE Comparison to Other Sweeteners Its promoters cite several benefits over other sweeteners, such as: * Unlike saccharin, sucralose leaves no bitter aftertaste. * Unlike other artificial sweeteners, it remains stable at high temperatures. * Unlike sugar, it does not raise blood glucose levels As a comparison to sucralose's 600-fold sweetness increase over sugar, consider the other artificial sweeteners on the market: * Saccharin (Sweet-and -Low) - 300 to 500 times sweeter * Aspartame (NutraSweet and Equal) - 150 to 200 times sweeter * Acesulfame K (Sunette) - 200 times sweeter. Big Business A 1998 report in Chemical Week states that the high-intensity sweetener market is about $1.5-billion/year. About 70%-80% of that market is made up of soft drink sweeteners, of which aspartame has a near monopoly. They note that although sucralose is 50% sweeter than aspartame, it will be difficult to persuade many soft drink producers to give up NutraSweet (aspartame) since it is widely accepted by consumers. Is Anyone Monitoring Post-Approval Reactions? Apparently not. With no established system for monitoring and tracking post-approval adverse effects, how can it ever be established whether large-scale and long-term consumption of sucralose is safe? Technical Information Sucralose is made from sucrose by substituting three chlorine atoms for three hydroxyl groups to yield 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-BETA-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. This is accomplished in a five-step process. Prolonged storage, particularly at high temperatures and low pH, causes the sucralose to break down into 4-chloro-4-deoxy-galactose (4CG) and 1,6-dichloro-1,6-dideoxyfructose (1,6 DCF), The Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number (CAS Reg. No.) for sucralose is 56038-13-2. Science Behind Sucralose Toxicity Here are some of the specific biochemical reasons why you will want to give serious consideration to consuming sucralose. Much of the concern is related to the fact that the manufacturer of sucralose claims that it is derived from sugar that contains the monosaccharide sucrose. Look at the chemical name of sucralose: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-galactopyranoside. One would have expected that a product "made form sugar" as they say on the box, would be called: 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-beta-D-fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-alpha-D-glucopyranoside. Why does this molecule contain a chlorinated galactose moiety rather than a chlorinated glucose moiety if it is made from sucrose? When the molecule is hydrolyzed, chlorinated monosaccharides are produced from the product. Could it be that sucrose is not used due to the toxicity of chlorinated glucose? Should Sucralose be Avoided? The Holistic Medicine Web Page cites the following reasons to avoid sucralose: * Pre-approval tests indicated potential toxicity of sucralose. * There are no *independent* controlled human studies on sucralose (similar to 15 years ago for aspartame). * There are no long-term (12-24 months) human studies of sucralose's effects. * There is no monitoring of health effects. It took government agencies decades to agree that there were countless thousands of deaths from tobacco. Why? Simply because there had been no monitoring or epidemiological studies. Without such monitoring and studies, huge effects can easily go unnoticed. Do Products with Sucralose Carry Any Warning Labels Or Information Statements? No. The regulatory agencies and scientific review bodies that have endorsed the safety of sucralose have not required any warning information to be placed on the labels of products sweetened with sucralose. Conclusions The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center concludes that: While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanato's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders................