Forced vaccines...

stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3159552
Liberal=Wrong on principle.....hmm....don't know whether to call that arrogant or ignorant....Then when you consider anyone that is not "conservative" to be a liberal, it seems that almost 75% of the country is then "wrong"
Ignorant, would be calling 75% of the country liberals. There are multiple polls out that directly dispute that.
Besides I don't know what you're talking about, I'm an independent. I've independently come to the conclusion that liberal ideology flawed.
Why would I intentionally think something that is wrong?
I don't.

It isn't arrogant if I'm right, just like it isn't bragging if you can back it up...
 
jackri

jackri

Active Member
I stopped listening to talk shows and the "news" due to "idiotical" views from both sides... but this place is getting worse than that.
Whoever yells out their views the loudest wins -- forget any doctors or specialists that might have input.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3159559
Ignorant, would be calling 75% of the country liberals. There are multiple polls out that directly dispute that.
Besides I don't know what you're talking about, I'm an independent. I've independently come to the conclusion that liberal ideology flawed.
Why would I intentionally think something that is wrong?
I don't.

It isn't arrogant if I'm right, just like it isn't bragging if you can back it up...
And you honestly believe the useless polls? I take no credance in any poll produced. They throw these slanted percentages one way or the other, depending on whose side of the issue they are on. Then when you read the bottom of the 'national', or Gallop Polls, you find they interviewed 500 - 1000 people, out of what, 280 MILLION, for these expert polls.

And you sir are no Independent. With the multiple posts you've popped on this forum in the past voicing your opinions, you'd have to lean WAAAY left before you got yourself back to the middle.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by jackri
http:///forum/post/3159561
I stopped listening to talk shows and the "news" due to "idiotical" views from both sides... but this place is getting worse than that.
Whoever yells out their views the loudest wins -- forget any doctors or specialists that might have input.
My favorite "advise" from doctors is this story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/health/22screen.html
Somehow it isn't statistically relavant that they detect prostate cancer sooner? This is from an "esteemed expert doctor."
 
angler man

angler man

Member
I've independently come to the conclusion that liberal ideology flawed.
Hey, someone has to fill the insane asylums.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3159564
And you honestly believe the useless polls? I take no credance in any poll produced. They throw these slanted percentages one way or the other, depending on whose side of the issue they are on. Then when you read the bottom of the 'national', or Gallop Polls, you find they interviewed 500 - 1000 people, out of what, 280 MILLION, for these expert polls.

And you sir are no Independent. With the multiple posts you've popped on this forum in the past voicing your opinions, you'd have to lean WAAAY left before you got yourself back to the middle.

My point was that I'm as "independent" as most of those who claim they are independent...
The reality is I don't care who the ideology comes from, as long as it makes logical sense...
For instance, if you listen to the Houston mayoral race, there is 1 republican, but that dude sounds farther left than one of the democrats. So I'm (and this is probably the one time I'll do this) probably going to vote for a democrat. And to be honest, this dem is probably more conservative than McCain.
And I disagree that it is the middle either. I think most people, if they were properly informed, would be far more right wing than how they vote.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3159559
Ignorant, would be calling 75% of the country liberals. There are multiple polls out that directly dispute that.
Besides I don't know what you're talking about, I'm an independent. I've independently come to the conclusion that liberal ideology flawed.
Why would I intentionally think something that is wrong?
I don't.

It isn't arrogant if I'm right, just like it isn't bragging if you can back it up...
If you consider all Republicans as conservatives (which they aren't) then the 75% is inaccurate. But current conservative thought is, if you are with us, you must be a liberal, therefore approx. 75% (which includes repubs, dems, liberal or otherwise)
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3159569
If you consider all Republicans as conservatives (which they aren't) then the 75% is inaccurate. But current conservative thought is, if you are with us, you must be a liberal, therefore approx. 75% (which includes repubs, dems, liberal or otherwise)
but you must take into account ignorance...
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
however, there is so much data out there showing vaccines as having negative health impact that if faced to do it again with another child, I'm not sure what my decision would be. Just the links to autism should make you pause to research all you can.
I would love to see any such data. Do vaccines carry some risk - sure, but so does crossing the street. If there is a fire on your side of the street, you are far safer to incur the risk of crossing the street than walking past a burning building. The statistics are so clear for vaccines that they confer an overall benefit that I can hardly see what the controversy is about at the scientific level.
To come back to this thread, the Massachussets proposal says nothing about h1n1, nothing about immunizations, and is just a routine public health measure. I bet you even have such laws in Texas! It isn't a matter of constitutional rights - the US Constitution is a contract with the people, not ON the people.
 
jackri

jackri

Active Member
I agree with GeriDoc wanting to see the data.
Because a celebrity has a baby with autism and blames it on vaccines it must be true right? It couldn't be that autism doesn't show up until about the time kids gets vaccines could it? No lets take the easy way and blame something not at fault and thus endangering people that can benefit from the vaccine.
This isn't like a drug company ad where the side effects are worse than what you're trying to prevent.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3159569
If you consider all Republicans as conservatives (which they aren't) then the 75% is inaccurate. But current conservative thought is, if you are with us, you must be a liberal, therefore approx. 75% (which includes repubs, dems, liberal or otherwise)
Out of fairness, it is the dems that try and destroy what they deem as their opponents. (see obama and foxnews)
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3159585
Out of fairness, it is the dems that try and destroy what they deem as their opponents. (see obama and foxnews)
really? Also see Foxnews and Obama, Rush and Obama.....its definitely not one sided.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3159590
really? Also see Foxnews and Obama, Rush and Obama.....its definitely not one sided.
There is a difference between someone who is not president, and the President of the United States. And attacking personal attacks (see robert bork, or Bush) and ideological attacks. I have no problem with attacks of ideology. that is the whole idea of our electoral system.
 
renogaw

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3159545
The potential link to SIDS as well....
to completely derail my own thread, it would be wonderful if they could friggin pinpoint what causes sids...problem is how do you do tests on babies... oh, we think this may kill your child, mind if we do it? not enough orphans out there (JOKING!!)
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
I didn't immunize my children and they have been far healthier than the other children at their schools(Idaho/Arizona). They don't have allergies. They don't/haven't had asthma. They have had measles, mumps and chicken pocks, but so did all our friends children who WERE vaccinated and their children were far more sick, far longer. Besides, since vaccinations are the medical wonder that they are, everyone else's children are perfectly safe, right? My children have never been hospitalized and never needed it. Never had to run them to the ER every other month. I guess we got REAL lucky. According the the AMA and pharmaceutical companies, they are statistically dead.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3159747
I didn't immunize my children and they have been far healthier than the other children at their schools(Idaho/Arizona). They don't have allergies. They don't/haven't had asthma. They have had measles, mumps and chicken pocks, but so did all our friends children who WERE vaccinated and their children were far more sick, far longer. Besides, since vaccinations are the medical wonder that they are, everyone else's children are perfectly safe, right? My children have never been hospitalized and never needed it. Never had to run them to the ER every other month. I guess we got REAL lucky. According the the AMA and pharmaceutical companies, they are statistically dead.
The children who were vaccinated certainly did NOT have measles or mumps. How would you have felt if your children, shedding measles infection, had infected a young child whose immunity had not yet developed sufficiently to fight this infection (and probably died as a result)? It is called the social contract, and it means that regardless of your political leanings, you do have some responsibilities to the rest of society. If you don't think you do, then you should move out of the society, because you don't deserve fire protection, education, police services, etc. And, of course, if you reject the social contract, then it is a good thing that your children have never needed hospital services, since you clearly reject those too, since they arise as a consequence of the social contract. Read Adam Smith!
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I can see forcing otherwise healthy people, be they children or adults to be vaccinated against incurable diseases like polio and such but not the flu.
 
mantisman51

mantisman51

Active Member
Ah, the voice of medical facism. You vill take ze shot und you vill not upset the social orders. Since the flu kills far more than the three mentioned, do we jail all those who contract it? Oh, and how about all those MD's and phd's who say the danger of vaccinations outweigh the benefit? I guess to the gulag with them, as well? I mean after all their dissension is endangering public health and order, right? Oh hey, what about the pharmaceutical companies that have been proven to have killed people with their bad vaccinations? Oh yeah, their protected by Federal law. Their victims, er patients, got what they deserved, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top