RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC

RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 5:36:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Leahy joins call for CDC, HHS to reverse on banned words list Senators: Banning Words like Fetus, Transgender and Science/Evidence-Based Could Lead to Censorship, Impact Public Health Goals https://futurism.com/cdc-director-no-banned-words-cdc/ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/cdc-director-says-there-are-no-banned-words-at-the-agency quote: “As I have said previously, there are no banned, prohibited, or forbidden words at the CDC — period,” said CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald in a statement to Futurism. “I want to emphasize to anyone who may believe otherwise that we continue to encourage open dialogue about all of the important public health work we do.” Fitzgerald also affirmed the CDC’s position to employees in an email that was later posted to Twitter. “As part of our commitment to provide for the common defense of the country against health threats, science is and will remain the foundation of our work,” Fitzgerald wrote in the email. “CDC has a long-standing history of making public health and budget decisions that are based on the best available science and data and for the benefit of all people — and we will continue to do so.” But, a whole bunch of Democrats say the words are banned, so..... lolololololololololololololol

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 6:01:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic lolololololololololololololol Well, when you phrase it like that.... [8\|]

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 6:39:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird The terminology from old to new being henceforth; 'vulnerable' -> "'eager and willing 13 yr. old girl" 'entitlement' -> "oil companies, banks, agro-chem, armaments, etc." 'diversity' -> See above. 'transgender' -> "a 13 yr. old girl wearing the military uniform of a Major is HOT!" 'fetus' -> banning that saves a boatload of money since it saves us from worrying about stupid pregnant women an stuff. Especially if Trump spreads that to all medical universities. 'evidence-based' -> "I know there's all this hoo-ha about 'evidence' and everything, but . . . I can't understand any of it! Can you!? (pointedly points to crowd) (crowd of losers stand and cheer raucously, give salute of submission) 'science-based' -> See above. You really need to catch up on your reading. It's already been shown in this thread that (1) the terms are not banned, and (2) the list was developed internally to the CDC by employees within the CDC (aka NOT by the Trump Administration). I did mention the president, actually, but if you have names for the real perpetrators, that would help.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 6:48:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, a whole bunch of Democrats say the words are banned, so..... Source, names. Or shut up.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 6:53:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird The terminology from old to new being henceforth; 'vulnerable' -> "'eager and willing 13 yr. old girl" 'entitlement' -> "oil companies, banks, agro-chem, armaments, etc." 'diversity' -> See above. 'transgender' -> "a 13 yr. old girl wearing the military uniform of a Major is HOT!" 'fetus' -> banning that saves a boatload of money since it saves us from worrying about stupid pregnant women an stuff. Especially if Trump spreads that to all medical universities. 'evidence-based' -> "I know there's all this hoo-ha about 'evidence' and everything, but . . . I can't understand any of it! Can you!? (pointedly points to crowd) (crowd of losers stand and cheer raucously, give salute of submission) 'science-based' -> See above. You really need to catch up on your reading. It's already been shown in this thread that (1) the terms are not banned, and (2) the list was developed internally to the CDC by employees within the CDC (aka NOT by the Trump Administration). I did mention the president, actually, but if you have names for the real perpetrators, that would help. Well, if you bother to read the thread (it's right in the OP, even), you'll see the Trump Administration was blamed for the banned words. And, you'll also find links corroborating my assertion that it was internal to the CDC. quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, a whole bunch of Democrats say the words are banned, so..... Source, names. Or shut up. You truly are fucking dense, aren't you? Try reading Post#96 (which was what I was responding to). Here's a link in case you don't know your numbers, either: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=5097098

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 7:26:13 PM)
What I was asking was who within the CDC actually came up with the list in the first place, and whence the instigation? I see now that you only were referring to the Democrats claiming enforcement when it wasn't enforced. But still, don't you find it curious as to how such a scientifically-based organization came up with such a blatantly politically biased and retrograde list in the first place? Allegedly "within." Really? If anyone thinks that such items as "evidence-based" or "science-based" being proposed for elimination from discussion, from an organization depending so much upon exactly that, and claimed to be "from within," . . . Seriously? I think we're not getting the whole story, here. Not that you would be interested, in any case.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 7:54:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird What I was asking was who within the CDC actually came up with the list in the first place, and whence the instigation? I see now that you only were referring to the Democrats claiming enforcement when it wasn't enforced. But still, don't you find it curious as to how such a scientifically-based organization came up with such a blatantly politically biased and retrograde list in the first place? Allegedly "within." Really? FFS, man! READ the thread and what's been posted!! Many people on here have posted links, and some of them are quite germane to your question. quote: If anyone thinks that such items as "evidence-based" or "scientifically-based" being proposed to be eliminated from discussion from an organization depending so much upon exactly that, and claimed to be "from within," . . . I think we're not getting the whole story, here. Not that you would be interested in any case. I'm not going to do your research. Links have already been put into this thread pointing out it was an internally generated list. Feel free to search for the rest of the story, if you think it's out there. The Democrats I was referring to were the Senators that signed a letter to the CDC/HHS, stating the words were banned. To that, I posted the CDC Director stating there are no words that are banned. And, I will say, with any news outlet (any also includes FOX News Channel, Breitbart, and any other conservative outlet), we don't ever get the whole story.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 8:16:10 PM)
I did all the research 20-30 years ago. CNN, Fox, NBC/CBS/ABC, etc. all of them a "no go" here. I knew people "in the business," and it's amazing (but maybe not) that they present things so differently as opposed to what actually transpired. In any case, I just find it 'curious,' to say the least, that an organization such as the CDC came up with such a proposal, supposedly "from within." Is this like Monsanto's Michael Taylor writing all those 'white papers' in various NGO blogs explaining that we would all die if we didn't eat at least 90% GMO foods? And trying to outlaw backyard gardens in that process (he really did that). And explaining that the most despondent African farmers could only be saved by beneficence of Monsanto selling them the most expensive (and environmentally disruptive) seeds in the world. Because of subsidies and bribes, etc. Oh boy, that's 'science', innit? But then, everything from the USDA "comes from within," right? Everybody can get back to watching their adult cartoons, now.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 8:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird I did all the research 20-30 years ago. Holy Fuck!! You did research 20-30 years ago on stuff that just transpired this year?!? "Great Scott!" quote: CNN, Fox, NBC/CBS/ABC, etc. all of them a "no go" here. I knew people "in the business," and it's amazing (but maybe not) that they present things so differently as opposed to what actually transpired. In any case, I just find it 'curious,' to say the least, that an organization such as the CDC came up with such a proposal, supposedly "from within." Is this like Monsanto's Michael Taylor writing all those 'white papers' in various NGO blogs explaining that we would all die if we didn't eat at least 90% GMO foods? And trying to outlaw backyard gardens in that process (he really did that). Oh boy, that's 'science', innit? But then, everything from the USDA "comes from within," right? Everybody can get back to watching their adult cartoons, now. Feel free to present relatively credible articles to the contrary.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 8:57:58 PM)
Contrary to what? Bullshit allegations? No. You can present evidence that the CDC came up with this all on their own, if you can. I've already looked, not finding it. As for the "20-30 yrs. ago" thing . . . You're invited to point to fact (if available) of the media being better now than it was then. And you're not displaying your best self in claiming that I'm relying on 30 yr. old news to read about the current CDC situation. Not exactly the brightest bulb in the fixture, there, certainly.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 9:11:09 PM)
The most disappointing thing is that the media plays to audience. But it's in the media's interests to to pander the audience down, both sides of the fence. This is not working well for us.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 9:50:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Contrary to what? Bullshit allegations? No. You can present evidence that the CDC came up with this all on their own, if you can. I've already looked, not finding it. If you don't accept the articles posted in this thread, well, that's on you. quote: As for the "20-30 yrs. ago" thing . . . You're invited to point to fact (if available) of the media being better now than it was then. So, you waxed poetic for what reason? quote: And you're not displaying your best self in claiming that I'm relying on 30 yr. old news to read about the current CDC situation. Not exactly the brightest bulb in the fixture, there, certainly. Right. Not the brightest bulbs tend to not make clear what they're responding to. At least you recognize you have a problem. I hear that's the first step...

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 9:51:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird The most disappointing thing is that the media plays to audience. But it's in the media's interests to to pander the audience down, both sides of the fence. This is not working well for us. We completely agree here.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 10:37:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Contrary to what? Bullshit allegations? No. You can present evidence that the CDC came up with this all on their own, if you can. I've already looked, not finding it. If you don't accept the articles posted in this thread, well, that's on you. You are welcome to point out where in such articles there was convincing evidence that there was no exogenous influence. If you believe everything you read, that's on you. I read the articles, I saw no convincing evidence that it was 100% from within. Just hearsay, anecdotal, not corroborated other than by other hearsay, etc. quote: As for the "20-30 yrs. ago" thing . . . You're invited to point to fact (if available) of the media being better now than it was then. quote: So, you waxed poetic for what reason? Was that 'poetic'? I missed that, myself. The media sucked 30 or 60 yrs. ago, and the media sucks now, and will likely suck 50-100 yrs, hence. They apparently take it as their task to rattle our cage at opportune moments. So then it it comes to them to put us in such cage as to be rattled within in the first place. I read a book by a guy who worked camera and production on a lot of commercials. He said that the hired psychologists from marketing proved that a more agitated audience was a more susceptible audience. The media sell advertising, and thereby increase revenue by presenting the most susceptible audience to their clients. (more agitated resulted in being more susceptible to suggestion, in those tests. They just wanted to hit a button and turn it off). Which the media do by rattling cages at every opportunity. So now we have to go out and buy it, to "turn it off."

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 10:47:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Contrary to what? Bullshit allegations? No. You can present evidence that the CDC came up with this all on their own, if you can. I've already looked, not finding it. If you don't accept the articles posted in this thread, well, that's on you. You are welcome to point out where in such articles there was convincing evidence that there was no exogenous influence. If you believe everything you read, that's on you. I read the articles, I saw no convincing evidence that it was 100% from within. Just hearsay, anecdotal, not corroborated other than by other hearsay, etc. I have a feeling you won't accept anything unless it's original video and/or audio of the meeting. Good luck with that. I'm not going to play that game. quote: quote: As for the "20-30 yrs. ago" thing . . . You're invited to point to fact (if available) of the media being better now than it was then. quote: So, you waxed poetic for what reason? Was that 'poetic'? I missed that, myself. Not to worry. It was my mistaken understanding of the phrase. For whatever reason, I thought it had more to do with nostalgia. My error.

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/27/2017 10:57:44 PM)
You still haven't answered why you think it not curious at all that a scientifically oriented organization, whose job it is to protect us from the worst, by all investigative means, would come up with a proposal to eliminate "evidence-based" or "science-based" terminology in the first place, regarding the budget or otherwise. Is that not utterly bizarre?

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/28/2017 12:41:26 AM)
It's difficult to imagine the 8,000 or so PHD's working at the place coming up with that whopper. Just saying.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/28/2017 7:48:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird You still haven't answered why you think it not curious at all that a scientifically oriented organization, whose job it is to protect us from the worst, by all investigative means, would come up with a proposal to eliminate "evidence-based" or "science-based" terminology in the first place, regarding the budget or otherwise. Is that not utterly bizarre? quote: It's difficult to imagine the 8,000 or so PHD's working at the place coming up with that whopper. Just saying. OMFG!! You claimed to have read the articles linked in this thread, and you still ask this question?!? Go ahead and go back through. Read for comprehension this time. FFS!

DaddySatyr -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/28/2017 9:00:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri OMFG!! You claimed to have read the articles linked in this thread, and you still ask this question?!? Go ahead and go back through. Read for comprehension this time. FFS! Desi, I've read all the links, watched every news story (on CNN and PMSNBC), read all the newspapers (The NYT, Washington Times and HuffPo being the only ones I believe) and I have got to tell you: I still think this is all President Trump's doing because ... reasons (/sarcasm) Peace, Michael

Edwird -> RE: The 7 things you can't say at the CDC (12/29/2017 1:31:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's already been shown in this thread that (1) the terms are not banned, and (2) the list was developed internally to the CDC by employees within the CDC (aka NOT by the Trump Administration). Give the link for the post(s) that SHOW (by way of verifiable fact, not supposition of poster) that the directive was not originated exogenously. Otherwise, why didn't the CDC or HHS (Health and Human services, parent of CDC) deny it outright, rather than claim it as "mischaracterization," as Lucy and Wayward5oul first first brought to attention here (by direct quote from the administrators themselves)? I didn't see anything officially from the CDC or HHS (within or outside this thread, from reliable sources) that this directive, or "suggestion," if you will, was derived internally. The question of derivation being addressed and answered, in fact, by denying that this external influence had as much influence as people thought. "It is a mischaracterization." Protesting quite loudly, in Shakespearean fashion.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875