US Government and The World's Most Evil Corporation.

1. 82

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years ago

   If you've ever wondered how it is that the United States Government allows for absolutely deadly foods such as Monsanto Corn, Monsanto Soy, and Roundup to continually damage the lives of not just those using those products so unwisely, but for the generations to come who are subject to birth defects and disease, well, here's some fact that perchance could explain that sufficiently for you.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   That, of course, helps to explain why the Food and Drug Administration illegally monitored the emails of folks who blew the whistles to protect the rest of us from the evil of an organization headed by a Monsanto Lawyer and with a Eugenicist on the board of commissioners.
   
   http://misbehavedwoman.wordpress.com/20 … leblowers/

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Terri Meredithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Really, Wes!  Do you actually believe presenting sources and backup for your claims will convince those who don't want to know?  
      
      Seriously, I become more and more alarmed as these kinds of reports continue to come out.  About a year ago, I wrote a hub mentioning software called "Social Sentry".
      
      ".... we need to give more attention to protecting our rights to privacy and free speech. Due to the fact that there are presently relatively few laws regulating internet communications, there is a surge of monitoring activity by employers against employees. A 2007 survey shows that 43% of the companies interviewed, engage in email monitoring with another 12% monitoring blogs of its employees. These numbers were up 27% from 2001. In March of 2010, the company Teneros released a software called Social Sentry which enables employers to discover and monitor their employees' social networking accounts. This means an employer can keep better tabs on its employees, even when the activities are taking place on personal time, using personally owned devices."
      
      So far, it has yet to be determined by a court of law regarding whether raiding employee personal email accounts is an invasion of privacy.  Corporate entities maintain that it is their right to do so in order to ensure that their employees are maintaining a public image in accordance with what they would like to project.  In other words, they believe they have a right to fire an employee if he/she doesn't agree with their practices, whether such practices are legal or illegal.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         No, I really prefer to just say, "that isn't true, and you're a poo poo head.  I'm a scientist - I don't need links to back up my ultra science talk."
         
         Then, I like to run to staff and say, "LOOK!!!!!!!!  people are doubting my ultimate and totally non backed up science talk!"

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Terri Meredithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If you're referring to who I believe you may be referring, I just read in another forum that she/he is a full-time non-violence advocate for a non-profit organization.  I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but if an organization claims the status of non-profit for IRS purposes, they come under the jurisdiction of the Federal government and must abide by all the rules associated with the 501c3 classification.  Which certainly doesn't make them unbiased.
            
            In addition, if the organization receives any government funding whatsoever, the members of said organization are limited in what actions may be taken on behalf of the organization, as well as what personal opinions may be publicly made known.  Certainly not unbiased.
            
            How do I know these things?  Because I have been invited many times over the past years to join one or another organization as an activist.  I've declined in order to maintain my right to speak and act on my own conscience rather than on behalf of Big Brother.  We freelance activists are free to say what we wish, while those employed must always reflect the rules which bind their funding.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I didn't say I was unbiassed.  Just that I do not work for industry at all, especially Monsanto.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  Terri Meredithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you for responding in a fair tone.  The point I was making to Wes is that I believed I knew to whom he was referring.  And yes, that person was certainly you.  However, I was surely not suggesting that you work for anyone in particular, but rather that your stated views would be subject to maintaining certain criteria depending on the funding sources of the organization by whom you are employed.
                  
                  The fact that you have honestly acknowledged that you aren't claiming unbiassed opinion, leads me to the point I believe Wes has been trying to make in his heated and passionate manner...That those who are employed by an organization with certain money ties, will ultimately respond in ways that support the agenda of the organization. 
                  
                  If the people in the United States have grown distrustful of their government because of all the scandals and abuses perpetrated upon the citizenry, (those activities which have been openly exposed and/or acknowledged) they will not embrace the ideology of someone who has ties to the government.  In their eyes, such people would be nothing more than a sock puppet.  Fair or not, that's normal behavior, and to be expected.
                  
                  By the very name you have chosen as your handle, you have implied you have an interest in the methods and teachings of the American behaviorist, B.F. Skinner.  He was all about behavior modification...methods by which the thinking processes and behaviors of human beings could be modified through verbal behaviors to reflect a chosen acceptable behavioral response.
                  
                  "Audience control is developed through long histories of reinforcement and punishment. Skinner's three-term contingency can be used to analyze how this works: the first term, the antecedent, refers to the audience, in whose presence the verbal response (the second term) occurs. The consequences of the response are the third term, and whether or not those consequences strengthen or weaken the response will affect whether that response will occur again in the presence of that audience."

                  replyreport
2. 82

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years ago

   I wish the image had shown up bigger, but I believe a little Control+ should do the trick.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      unfortunately it doesn't - but nobody will take notice of facts anyway

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You cheeky bugger, R1.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's pretty obvious!

         replyreport
3. 67

   Terri Meredithposted 12 years ago

   And yet again, our fearless leader has been banned.  I'm not sure why, to be honest.  I'm guessing it's the same old story of disagreement turns nasty and then someone sticks out their tongue and runs to teacher to tattle.  This is about the silliest behavior I've ever seen in an adult.  I can't help wondering if I'm going to be next just by association.

   replyreport
   1. 52

      Stormlynnposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps it is just their way of 'using a method to try and suppress dissent.' ;o)

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Terri Meredithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Are you referring to "audience control"????              

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Not again, that boys behaviour seriously needs to be modified.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Terri Meredithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         But then he wouldn't be the Wes we soooo love to watch!  Seriously though, I do not understand why anyone would intentionally follow another from forum to forum unless it's for harassment purposes.  I simply can't wrap my head around the need to engage in such behavior.  There's nothing positive in it, and it surely won't serve to give the perpetrator of such acts, any positive standing in the eyes of the onlookers.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Personally, I'm not in to modifying behaviour. I'd rather debate with a human being not a slavering dog! I've never been banned from the forums either, nor have I ever flagged another hubber. (alghough I have flagged spammers from time to time) I'm not that insensitive, or paranoid. Must be awful to be so insecure that you can't take the odd insult or two, without wanting to censor. The word pity comes to mind.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               Terri Meredithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I'm with you, Hollie.  I couldn't care less what some child calls me.  It doesn't make me change my own opinion of myself, and it doesn't cause me to assume that everyone who associates with the "insulter" is of the same mind.  However, childish behavior in an adult will surely attract condescension and ridicule from others who hold themselves to higher standards.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Or it will attract "pity." Glad I'm not that paranoid.

                  replyreport
4. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   Have I got a pic for this thread!!!
   
   If I can just find it...
   
   Stay tuned.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm a waiting.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Looks like we tied.

         replyreport
5. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   "McDonald's drops use of gooey ammonia-based 'pink slime' in hamburger meat"
   
   
   
   http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ … urger-meat

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Terri Meredithposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      awww...but pink is so pretty!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The use of treated scrap meat "to me as a chef and a food lover is shocking," Oliver said. "... Basically we're taking a product that would be sold in the cheapest form for dogs and making it 'fit' for humans.
      
      Didn't I mention were considered as "Pavlov's"

      replyreport