Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See? There you go (people). Thank-you Loveshiscountry!
Don't BELIEVE the figures the government wants you to believe. They are medical establishment numbers handed over to the government designed to get you to run to your nearest medical doctor so he can put you on prescriptions for the rest of your life (and probably shorten your life span in the process).
Do your own research. Go to any decent sized graveyard and look at the grave stones. Note all the ones where the person was born in the 1700s or later and lived to adulthood. Note the age they were when they died. I think you'll find the majority of them died well into their 70's if not much later.
You won't find the majority dying at age 45 like the government WANTS you to believe.
And you would be wrong. Check out this link, which graphs the average life span for Americans, 1850 - 2000. 70 did not become the average until 1970... Mapping History
And you would be wrong. Check out this link, which graphs the average life span for Americans, 1850 - 2000. 70 did not become the average until 1970... Mapping History
That's a cool chart. In 1850 the avg life expectancy was 38. If you were male and lived to see 20 then your life expectancy jumped to 58.
What I constantly read in many threads isn't any discussion about issues, it's "oh he's crazy" "oh he's old", "oh look at his polling numbers", etc.
Whatever happened to discussion about why we're in the financial mess we're in now? How did this come about? Why are we in more wars now than 2008 and occupying more countries? Why do we need to continue to pump money into half the world, including Europe, when we're so far in debt? Whatever happened to our industrial base, such as steel mills in the 70's? Car manufacturers? And now high tech? Why is China eating our lunch? Why are we now assassinating US citizens without trial?
If you've bothered to think about this, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has specifically addressed these issues, identified the root causes, and poses specific solutions. That is precisely why he is ignored by the media, especially the so-called right wing Fox News.
To those who are so shallow that all they care about is age, polling numbers, or what rumors HuffPo digs up, go ahead and vote for Romney, you'll deserve what you get.
I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting for whatever the media tells me "who's electable". Don't be a sucker and be led by others, think about what is important to you and go with the candidate which honestly aligns with your policies.
What I constantly read in many threads isn't any discussion about issues, it's "oh he's crazy" "oh he's old", "oh look at his polling numbers", etc.
Whatever happened to discussion about why we're in the financial mess we're in now? How did this come about? Why are we in more wars now than 2008 and occupying more countries? Why do we need to continue to pump money into half the world, including Europe, when we're so far in debt? Whatever happened to our industrial base, such as steel mills in the 70's? Car manufacturers? And now high tech? Why is China eating our lunch? Why are we now assassinating US citizens without trial?
If you've bothered to think about this, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has specifically addressed these issues, identified the root causes, and poses specific solutions. That is precisely why he is ignored by the media, especially the so-called right wing Fox News.
To those who are so shallow that all they care about is age, polling numbers, or what rumors HuffPo digs up, go ahead and vote for Romney, you'll deserve what you get.
I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting for whatever the media tells me "who's electable". Don't be a sucker and be led by others, think about what is important to you and go with the candidate which honestly aligns with your policies.
They don't often discuss the issues because many Americans are unwilling to own up to the fact that we(as a nation) are responsible for this mess we find ourselves in ... They are not looking for a solution, they are looking for a scapegoat. It really boils down to people lacking in personal responsibility and an over abundance of apathy ... Many people just don't want to know the truth, they would much rather you lie to them ... Tow the party line and don't rock the boat!
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 10-04-2011 at 06:22 AM..
What i wager is that the hard part is for Paul to win the GOP ... If he can win the nomination then i believe he would beat out Obama in the debates without question. I think he would definitely win the presidential election if he could just win the GOP.
People say they want change, but they are never willing to put their money where their mouths are ... You guys know he is the best man for the Job, stop repeating the media rhetoric and programming and start thinking about making that change.
Finally if Dr. Paul doesn't win the GOP this time around, then we will have to be looking for other viable candidates to carry the banner if he chooses not to run again ... I have a few ideas ... Maybe even Congressman Dennis Kucinich?
What i wager is that the hard part is for Paul to win the GOP ... If he can win the nomination then i believe he would beat out Obama in the debates without question. I think he would definitely win the presidential election if he could just win the GOP.
People say they want change, but they are never willing to put their money where their mouths are ... You guys know he is the best man for the Job, stop repeating the media rhetoric and programming and start thinking about making that change.
Finally if Dr. Paul doesn't win the GOP this time around, then we will have to be looking for other viable candidates to carry the banner if he chooses not to run again ... I have a few ideas ... Maybe even Congressman Dennis Kucinich?
Except for their stand on foreign policies, it is beyond my wildest imagination how anyone can support Paul and Kucinich at the same time, they are at totally different ends of the spectrum.
Except for their stand on foreign policies, it is beyond my wildest imagination how anyone can support Paul and Kucinich at the same time, they are at totally different ends of the spectrum.
NIta
I've tried to figure that out as well, and all I can figure is that it has more to do with integrity and following the letter of the law rather than actual issues. Quite frankly I'd be much more willing to vote for someone that I might slightly disagree with as long as I knew they were going about things the right way...its like these days we just twist and contort the rules so they fit whatever argument we want to make for the day...I dont see that with these two and I have respect for that.
And you would be wrong. Check out this link, which graphs the average life span for Americans, 1850 - 2000. 70 did not become the average until 1970... Mapping History
No I'm NOT Wrong. I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT AVERAGES! I'm talking about the MEAN
If you look at a graph, the mean is the age or age range when most people died.
To get the mean, you'd need to construct a graph like a capital "L" with the ages on the left ( 0 at the bottom and 100+ at the top) and the numbers at the bottom representing each person that died. If you put then all in order based on the age they were when they died (and not the date that they died), over let's say a ten year period from 1900 to 1905 or from 1840 to 1845 and look at the age where most of the deaths occurred, I think you'd find it was well into or past the 70s.
To review, you'd have a graph with the parameters in the shape of a capital "L". Ages from zero, at the bottom to 100 at the top of the left side of the "L" would be posted. Then along the bottom of the "L" you'd have a tick a dot in the middle of the graph opposing the age listed on the left representing each person that died. You could start at 1 month and list all those that died at one month during the five year period; then do the same for 2 months etc. THEN CONNECT THE DOTS. The number of deaths would probably drop way off after age 5 and there would be very few deaths until you reached the 60's and 70s and 80's.
You'd see after connecting all the dots, where the line plateaus is the age when the most number of people die which has nothing to do with the average but is a lot more telling.
Averages tell you NOTHING. The Mean tells you the age until which most people lived who survived childbirth and childhood diseases lived until. If you look at the mean, the stories of how people died healthy in their sleep make a lot of sense. Their immune systems were stronger; they ate better food; their minds were more active; they exercised more and they were less stressed. There was no dumbing down, no computers and no TV. There were no toxic drugs or radiation.
Do yourself an favor and DON'T BUY INTO THE AVERAGES argument. IT MEANS SQUAT. IT TELLS YOU NOTHING!
Sure if you compare averages. We live longer today because the infant mortality rate is lower than it was then. I think what is more telling is to see the ages peopled died one and two hundred years ago and how they died vs how and at what age and what we die from today. Back then the majority of people died healthy in their sleep. (Sure there were more farm accidents than today but not everyone had a commercial farm so maybe there were more commercial farm accidents than today but that still doesn't mean anything.) Today they die from the so called "health care" they are receiving (drugs, radiation, surgery) and the toxic food and water they ingest doesn't help either!
Contrary to popular opinion you could make an argument against pasturization too because all that does is KILL the life force and healthful enzymes in our food.
I've tried to figure that out as well, and all I can figure is that it has more to do with integrity and following the letter of the law rather than actual issues. Quite frankly I'd be much more willing to vote for someone that I might slightly disagree with as long as I knew they were going about things the right way...its like these days we just twist and contort the rules so they fit whatever argument we want to make for the day...I dont see that with these two and I have respect for that.
I'm a supporter of both Kucinich and Paul. It's definitely more of a "doing the right thing" approach. I disagree with Paul on a few non-major issues, but that's to be expected because I'm further left.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
