Affiliate Marketing Secrets

my hair dresser told me dove, pantene and herbal essence are not good for you hair. I asked if this is true on yahoo and ppl said it is bc they have so much chemicals. If that is true what about the styling products or skin care products by dove. Also what shampoos are bad for the hair.
I also searched reviews on dove and herbal essence and the majority of them were rated them really good. Idk.

1 in 5 is irreligious…this number is only growing and in 10 years we will be the majority. You can already see the panic among the “believers” who feel threatened that we will take Christmas without realizing we already have their children. Eventually politicians will not have to pander to them and our progress won’t be slowed by debating social issues like abortion and equality for gays.
We are living in marvelous times my friends.

I don’t understand ! I am a person who has been watching both political parties and I’m really not affiliated with either.I can’t believe this, there is recorded video’s and tapes ! He absolutely is the most contradicted person there is! How can you trust a man to lead the country who say’s he’s against something one week then the next he’s for it! I don’t believe the poles are so close! It’s not just that there is so much more that I don’t even wish to type it! How can so many women want to be told what to do with their bodies! I could go on and on! Also I know Obama is not perfect either,but I have really have been watching both sides of this for a year and I believe he is the lesser of 2 evil’s! The majority of Romney’s advisor’s and staff are former Bush do you really want another Bush administration?

What do you think of this academic paper by a team of academics at Haute Ecole de Gestion de Genève, 7, rte de Drize, 1227 Carouge in Switzerland?:- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221709004251
Do you agree with the main results of the study which claim that the stability of marital relations would be improved by 21% if both partners are the same age, cultural background, educational attainment, and both have no previous experience of divorce?:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222726/The-secret-happy-marriage—man-5-years-older-hasn-t-hitched-before.html
http://www.bodyspacesociety.eu/2009/11/02/love-the-swiss-way-sociologists-want-to-optimize-the-marriage-market/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10463132-71.html
Would it be correct to suggest that the study is flawed because the social, cultural, and political climate in Switzerland is unique and different to other Western countries?
Also, is there any chance whatsoever that the study is biased because Switzerland has a relatively recent history of immigration compared to other Western countries such as the UK and US; which implies that most of the ethnic minorities who are married to Swiss nationals in this sample are actually from non-Western countries, and this usually entails a higher risk of cultural difference between the partners; such cultural difference will tend to increase the risk of divorce or separation.
This is in stark contrast to the situation in Britain and the US, whereby, there are more ethnic minorities who are born, educated, and socialized in the respective country, which reduces the cultural difference factor quite significantly; and this in turn will reduce the risk of divorce or separation in the case of interracial relations between ethnic minorities and White people.
The study is flawed in another sense, because there is the underlying assumption that people of a different cultural/national origin will always have a different culture to the White majority, which is only true as an average, but this should not be generalized to include everyone who is an ethnic minority. The study is flawed because it doesn’t take into consideration the length of time an individual is exposed to the culture of the White majority; there is considerable difference between a recent immigrant from Africa and a black immigrant who has lived in a Western country from an early age. The latter is more acculturated and better adapted to his environment, but the first example is that of an African immigrant who is fresh off the boat.
There is a considerable difference between immigrants who are American to all intents and purposes and the more recent immigrants who are obviously fresh off the boat and foreigners; but this study is a simplified model of different social groups, which assumes that all people belonging to the same social group are exactly the same.
Hence, the study is biased, subjective, and flawed because the authors obviously have a hidden agenda and what is applicable to the social, cultural, and political climate in Switzerland should not be assumed to apply anywhere else in the world.
Also, it’s useful to remember that the 21% increase in the rate of divorce or separation is an estimate based on aggregate but distinct criteria: age, education, cultural background, and previous history of divorce; but on no account are we to assume that differences in cultural origin would account for the entire 21% estimate. On the contrary, differences in cultural origin should account for a mere fraction of that 21% result according to the study.
The study is to some extent an attack on interracial/inter-ethnic marriage where the partners have a different cultural origin; but at the same time, it’s important to remember that differences in cultural origin cannot account for the entire 21% result in the study.
The American Clinical Psychologist Maria P.P. Root has written a book about interracial marriage in the US, and she is known to have said that cultural differences are more likely to be the cause of divorce or separation than any difference in age, education, class, and RACE.
TRUE OR FALSE?

What do you think of this academic paper by a team of academics at Haute Ecole de Gestion de Genève, 7, rte de Drize, 1227 Carouge in Switzerland?:- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221709004251
Do you agree with the main results of the study which claim that the stability of marital relations would be improved by 21% if both partners are the same age, cultural background, educational attainment, and both have no previous experience of divorce?:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222726/The-secret-happy-marriage—man-5-years-older-hasn-t-hitched-before.html
http://www.bodyspacesociety.eu/2009/11/02/love-the-swiss-way-sociologists-want-to-optimize-the-marriage-market/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10463132-71.html
Would it be correct to suggest that the study is flawed because the social, cultural, and political climate in Switzerland is unique and different to other Western countries?
Also, is there any chance whatsoever that the study is biased because Switzerland has a relatively recent history of immigration compared to other Western countries such as the UK and US; which implies that most of the ethnic minorities who are married to Swiss nationals in this sample are actually from non-Western countries, and this usually entails a higher risk of cultural difference between the partners; such cultural difference will tend to increase the risk of divorce or separation.
This is in stark contrast to the situation in Britain and the US, whereby, there are more ethnic minorities who are born, educated, and socialized in the respective country, which reduces the cultural difference factor quite significantly; and this in turn will reduce the risk of divorce or separation in the case of interracial relations between ethnic minorities and White people.
The study is flawed in another sense, because there is the underlying assumption that people of a different cultural/national origin will always have a different culture to the White majority, which is only true as an average, but this should not be generalized to include everyone who is an ethnic minority. The study is flawed because it doesn’t take into consideration the length of time an individual is exposed to the culture of the White majority; there is considerable difference between a recent immigrant from Africa and a black immigrant who has lived in a Western country from an early age. The latter is more acculturated and better adapted to his environment, but the first example is that of an African immigrant who is fresh off the boat.
There is a considerable difference between immigrants who are American to all intents and purposes and the more recent immigrants who are obviously fresh off the boat and foreigners; but this study is a simplified model of different social groups, which assumes that all people belonging to the same social group are exactly the same.
Hence, the study is biased, subjective, and flawed because the authors obviously have a hidden agenda and what is applicable to the social, cultural, and political climate in Switzerland should not be assumed to apply anywhere else in the world.
Also, it’s useful to remember that the 21% increase in the rate of divorce or separation is an estimate based on aggregate but distinct criteria: age, education, cultural background, and previous history of divorce; but on no account are we to assume that differences in cultural origin would account for the entire 21% estimate. On the contrary, differences in cultural origin should account for a mere fraction of that 21% result according to the study.
The study is to some extent an attack on interracial/inter-ethnic marriage where the partners have a different cultural origin; but at the same time, it’s important to remember that differences in cultural origin cannot account for the entire 21% result in the study.
The American Clinical Psychologist Maria P.P. Root has written a book about interracial marriage in the US, and she is known to have said that cultural differences are more likely to be the cause of divorce or separation than any difference in age, education, class, and RACE.
TRUE OR FALSE?

If birds were once dinosaurs, then why dont they dominate the planet today? The vast majority of bird species are just small flyers who eat bugs and small animals. You dont see giant grazing birds or large bird carnivores anymore (though there were some not too long ago, as in the terror birds). Why dont you see birds today that are like the raptors (as in the dromaeosaurs). Why have the never re-evolved the features that some dinosaurs had? A raptor-like bird isnt really out of the question, considering the relatively recent terror birds, who only went extinct like 2 million years ago (more than 60 million years after the dinosaurs died out), if i’m not mistaking.
Yeah, you have some large birds like ostriches and emus (who are probably the most dinosaur-like birds that exist today), but all the large carnivores on this planet are mammals (lions, bears, tigers, wolves), with the exception of crocodiles and komodo dragons. There are no large carnivorous birds anymore. Come to think of it, reptiles are mostly small animals too. The only giant-sized animals since the dinosaurs vanished have all been mammals. Why can’t birds achieve the sizes of the dinosaurs, or fill the same niches as the dinosaurs once did?