WE NEED MARKETS, NOT MANDATES …
|| By RON PAUL || If I were still a practicing ob-gyn and one of my patients said she was not going to vaccinate her child, I might try to persuade her to change her mind. But, if I were unsuccessful, I would respect her decision. I certainly would not lobby the government to pass a law mandating that children be vaccinated even if the children’s parents object. Sadly, the recent panic over the outbreak of measles has led many Americans, including some self-styled libertarians, to call for giving government new powers to force all children to be vaccinated.
Those who are willing to make an “exception” to the principle that parents should make health care decisions for their children should ask themselves when in history has a “limited” infringement on individual liberty stayed limited. By ceding the principle that individuals have the right to make their own health care decisions, supporters of mandatory vaccines are opening the door for future infringements on health freedom.
If government can mandate that children receive vaccines, then why shouldn’t the government mandate that adults receive certain types of vaccines? And if it is the law that individuals must be vaccinated, then why shouldn’t police officers be empowered to physically force resisters to receive a vaccine? If the fear of infections from the unvaccinated justifies mandatory vaccine laws, then why shouldn’t police offices fine or arrest people who don’t wash their hands or cover their noses or mouths when they cough or sneeze in public? Why not force people to eat right and take vitamins in order to lower their risk of contracting an infectious disease? These proposals may seem outlandish, but they are no different in principle from the proposal that government force children to be vaccinated.
By giving vaccine companies a captive market, mandates encourage these companies to use their political influence to expand the amount of vaccine mandates. An example of how vaccine mandates may have led politics to override sound science is from my home state of Texas. In 2007, the then-Texas governor signed an executive order forcing eleven and twelve year old girls to receive the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine, even though most young girls are not at risk of HPV. The Texas legislature passed legislation undoing the order following a massive public outcry, fueled by revelations that the governor’s former chief of staff was a top lobbyist for the company that manufactured the HPV vaccine.
The same principles that protect the right to refuse vaccines also protect the right of individuals to refuse to associate with the unvaccinated. Private property owners have the right to forbid those who reject vaccines from entering their property. This right extends to private businesses concerned that unvaccinated individuals could pose a risk to their employees and customers. Consistent application of the principles of private property, freedom of association, and individual responsibility is the best way to address concerns that those who refuse vaccines could infect others with disease.
Giving the government the power to override parental decisions regarding vaccines will inevitably lead to further restrictions on liberties. After all, if government can override parental or personal health care decisions, then what area of our lives is off-limits to government interference? Concerns about infection from the unvaccinated can be addressed by consistent application of the principles of private property and freedom of association. Instead of justifying new government intrusion into our lives, the vaccine debate provides more evidence of the need to restore respect for private property and individual liberty.
Ron Paul is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas and the leader of the pro-liberty, pro-free market movement in the United States. His weekly column – reprinted with permission – can be found here.
121 comments
In 2008, a presidential candidate famously argued that “The effecacy of the measles vaccine is not settled science,…but global warming is.” …Obama went on to win the election.
another made up quote..awesome when no facts back your argument..make the shit up..(grand idiotliars basis on reality..)
Hes a Republican, its what they do. The disease started on Fox News, and spreads to anyone who watches.
oh, please!
I don’t think anyone is seriously advocating that police should forcibly hold down children and restrain their parents so they can be vaccinated against their will. But i do think that public schools should refuse enrollment for non vaccinated kids, and private schools ought to do the same.
Believe it or not but I have heard stories of this exact thing happening at schools. In high school my wife and all the other students were brought in under guard to receive a shot, without parental notice or consent. That is exactly what happened in Texas when Perry signed that executive order. March them girls in and forcibly inject them so that they don’t get an STD. Sad Sad day in America.
I can’t remember the exact phrase but Ron Paul is using the logic of the absurd. Taking a point and arguing points that just don’t relate.
It is reductio ad absurdum, and they do relate. It is a critical thinking argumentative form that illustrates how absurd a position is by taking it to it’s next logical step. Not to be confused with a Hypothetical Syllogism.
Thanks.
It’s my favorite form of argumentation, as it quickly shows whether it a principle is sound/universal.
For now it’s measals on the radar. Why not the flu and a shot every year next?
Sure he doesn’t mean non-sequitur?
You seem to practice it well.
The “Slippery Slope.” Last refuge of the intellectually lazy.
Arguing against it requires no principle, which is easy & convenient.
If there is a Controversy, why in the H#!! is this Liberal-Tarian preaching to us about it?
His @$$ has been in Congress for since when Clinton was molesting in elementary school, or Obama was in Islam classes.
It’s Paul’s F*#king fault that Dumb@$$ liberals have run rings around him…
Why has he NOT been doing his job????
Did you say &%^^ (&$^^& @#!)(
or did you mean to say ?(^/$% {$#% ?>#@$
Ah yes…A king of the Idiots, middle-of-the-roader Liberal-Tarian..who can” like” everybody…and NEVER say anything of substance…just preach ignorance…
As long as your Stupid-@$$ remains in the 2% range…you are the rulers of the world…Never leading, but ALWAYS having all the answers…w/o having to admit Obama is doing just as you’d direct…and falling on his @$$ at every turn…LMAO…
You and your establishment is to blame for that one.
Never been given the chance to lead due to the false dichotomy you and your fellow shills continue to propagate.
We is?….
YOU are the establishment. You say EXACTLY what every other lemming standing on line says..because you’re too stupid to look at reality and figure out what is going on round you…
No. You obviously can’t read for comprehension. Try again chump.
Don’t be a fool – polio is cool. Smart as a fox – we all love smallpox.
I agree with others in that you can’t FORCE children to get vaccines, but you can keep the unvaccinated from Publics schools, workplaces, etc. And if an unvaccinated person is proven to infect a vaccinated individual, they should be prosecuted civilly and criminally.
Did you notice how many of the kids who got measles from Disneyland were vaccinated? So if an unvaccinated person can give it to a vaccinated person, what is the point again? And if as is likely the case most of these diseases are traveling around the world, how do you stop it?
The point is that even with vaccination, a small % of people will still get sick (~ 10%). That is where ‘herd immunization’ comes in, and unfortunately you have to somewhat rely on your neighbors to keep up the societal health (I know, blasphemy for libertarians).
And we did stop it. Measles was all but eradicated in this country. The reason its coming back is because of the anti-vaxxer knuckleheads.
“That is where ‘herd immunization’ comes in, and unfortunately you have to somewhat rely on your neighbors to keep up the societal health (I know, blasphemy for libertarians).”
I can’t say I know one libertarian that wouldn’t be concerned about “societal health”.
Do you? (seriously, do you?)
The issue is not whether libertarians would like to see a healthy society, the issue is whether it’s appropriate for gov’t to force people to get vaccinations…as a precursor to sickness.
In other words, is a “Minority report” style governing/justice system, even in the case of vaccination, where the gov’t can prosecute “pre-crime”(because I agree with you that those that infect others should be held responsible) a type of system we want to endorse in any way, shape or form?
I’d prefer we not, because once we say that principle is ok, like all gov’t functions expect that one to expand.
That’s RP’s whole point in the write up above. I think it’s unfair and inaccurate to characterize libertarians as uncaring.
I’m having trouble following your line of thinking. In Wisconsin, public education is mandatory until age 18. So, if someone doesn’t vaccinate their child, the child is exempted from mandatory schooling? Or do you exclude the child from education, then arrest the parents for the child not being educated, then take the children into state custody on the grounds of neglect, and then allow the state to vaccinate them?
What about second-hand smoke — should smokers (over 40 million people) be charged with a crime if a lawyer can convince a jury that they injured or killed a plaintiff by smoking? I think libertarians would agree with you about civil damages. Not sure about criminal.
Here’s the problem with the libertarian “live and let live” attitude:
“…But, if I were unsuccessful, I would respect her decision…”
Respect her decision?!?! it’s a stupid, non-fact based, ignorant decision, how can you respect it? Agree that she has a “right to be stupid” sure but “respect” her stupidity?
Maybe what you should have done is say “…ma’am, I respect your right to have an opinion in this matter. Mine is based on x years of medical training and practice. If you chose to ignore my recommendations, I’m going to insist that you find a doctor more in line with your way of thinking – I hear the voodoo doctor down the street is taking patients. I will not place my other patients and staff at risk because you are stupid enough to buy the hype.”
“Here’s the problem with the libertarian “live and let live” attitude:”
Are you aware how your introductory sentence sounds?
Pray tell, what’s challenging about it?
“Are you aware how your introductory sentence sounds?”
Ok, you answered my question.
The point my friend is that you can accept ignorance without condoning it – a la “live and let live” or “respecting your (stupid) opinion”: My neighbor plays with explosives in his back yard but I’m a libertarian so that’s his right and who am I to say or do anything about it…
“My neighbor plays with explosives in his back yard but I’m a libertarian so that’s his right and who am I to say or do anything about it.”
Well, what you’ve done now is conflated two different issues.
First, let me agree with your initial statement:
“The point my friend is that you can accept ignorance without condoning it – a la “live and let live” or “respecting your (stupid) opinion”
I agree with this, +1 on that.
But, when it comes to “do anything about it”, that’s where you & I disagree. If someone’s stupid behavior hurts no one but themselves, they are entitled to do it if we respect individual rights(for better or worse) in society.
Using your example to illustrate further, if the explosives they are playing with in their back yard are going to damage me or my property in any way, then I absolutely have the right to stop them.
Remember that all libertarianism is(little L), is the proper application of force in society, decided by the non-aggression principle.
I’m with the poster “Johnny Logic” in that if someone’s kid is unvaccinated and exposes my kid and gets them sick, they should be held accountable…but it’s not libertarian or part of a free society to force people to do stuff if their actions aren’t harming anyone else.
I agree with Johnny as well – however, when there’s nothing to go after and your kid is dead, what’s your remediation?
As a parent, none of my three kids ever played with the children of my goofy friends who were “anti-vaxxers”. In fact, I lost a friend or two over the issue.
I’m decidedly not in favor of “mandatory vaccinations” but I’m just as sure your snot nosed kid ain’t coming anywhere near me if you don’t vaccinate him (or get a flu shot your damn self).
“I agree with Johnny as well – however, when there’s nothing to go after and your kid is dead, what’s your remediation?”
Well, that’s a problem in free society in general. The whole “trade their freedom for temporary security” thing as Franklin eloquently wrote.
There’s restitution in a just society for it, but you’re correct in that it doesn’t bring your kid back…but neither does restitution for murder either.
“I’m decidedly not in favor of “mandatory vaccinations” but I’m just as sure your snot nosed kid ain’t coming anywhere near me if you don’t vaccinate him (or get a flu shot your damn self).”
And that, my friend, makes you libertarian. (even if you don’t want to be! lol)
How about when he blows up your house along with his? Must you wait until damage is done before determining what is reasonable risk for the public health and welfare? We certainly fail gun safety on that one. Years back a young kid took his daddy’s loaded gun to school that he had taken out of a common area drawer. I contacted Metts’ office and asked why the parents weren’t charged with endangerment and neglect. I got some BS letter back about how the parents had learned the lesson etc. Then there’s the kids who do die from gun violence, and the CDV victims. Somehow we are able to find that acceptable
There are always risks living in a free society…you can’t legislate away risk without giving up freedom.
If one wishes to live in a society with maximum freedom, you have to consider what philosophy allows that in a manner that still protects individual rights & property and does so consistently.
Just talking “common sense” is a problem when there is no philosophy/guiding principle behind it because everyone’s notion of what “common sense” is, is different.
Follow your logic, and I might demand that no one drive a car. After all, around the world car accidents take more than a million lives — and about 37,000 a year in the US. Everyone will be forced to walk if your theory of governance is carried to its logical conclusion. People who want to avoid measles get vaccinated. Those who do not, take the risk. Ron Paul and I would advise them and let them. Most Americans, educated by Government schools, would not.
So you think parents should be allowed to make life threatening decisions regarding their children without government involvement? Do you believe a parent should be allowed to refuse surgery if the doctor says it will save a child’s life?
They do everyday.
It’s called risk management. Read about it. You reduced my point to absurdity
The risk here being children getting sick for a week. Is that risk really worth violating the personal space and well being of everyone?
“You reduced my point to absurdity”
That’s how you deal with logical fallacies….
If his other patients and staff are inoculated, then what’s the risk? The response is usually, “the vaccines don’t always work”. Then why mandate something not proven to work?
This whole mandatory vaccination nonsense is simply a handout to big pharma. The result will be they get richer and everyone gets sicker. There’s no other way this story ends.
“This whole mandatory vaccination nonsense is simply a handout to big pharma.”
““Thirty years ago, Henry Gadsden, the head of Merck, one of the world’s largest drug companies, told Fortune magazine that he wanted Merck to be more like chewing gum maker Wrigley’s. It had long been his dream, he said, to make drugs for healthy people so that Merck could “sell to everyone.” Gadsden’s dream now drives the marketing machinery for the most profitable industry on earth.”-Selling Sickness
That’s any entrepreneur’s dream–make the drug everyone needs, develop the app that becomes indispensable, create the product no one wants to be without (phone). No need to single out Merck or Pharma. The handout to Big Pharma was by Bush when Medicare Part D was passed and discounts for bulk purchases for Medicare/Medicaid were outlawed. Taxpayers are still paying for that corporate welfare
And now Obama has followed with guaranteed incomes for the insurance industry by signing a bill that assures them of countless billions of dollars in new income mandated by the misnamed “Affordable” Care Act.
It’s the infant who hasn’t been inoculated or the child who could not be inoculated that are at risk among the patients. Your staff may not get the full on illness but can become carriers even if they themselves are immune. Ever been to a hospital and wondered why the nurses take precautions? Surely they’ve had their shots…
And we know what your former employer would have done had you refused them. So they’re not mandatory–but if you opt out or refuse there are (or should be) consequences–like you can’t be in school X or job Y. So sure, you have that freedom–to choose. Public health is a legit gov’t function.
Concur wholeheartedly.
Vaccines aren’t 100% but their effects on diseases is 100% undeniable. Even if it doesn’t prevent getting it, it can help you fight it off quicker.
Government efforts to eradicate diseases does help. Polio eradication efforts owe a lot to Rotary, but it owes a lot to the CDC and UNICEF too.
Rotary deserves way more acclaim for their polio campaign than they’ve gotten, unfortunately stupidity has allowed polio to sneak in…
” it’s a stupid, non-fact based, ignorant decision, how can you respect it”
But doesn’t that define many, if not most, Republican positions? I mean, you don’t have to believe scientist or any other expert, unless they reach the conclusion you want, right? That is your god given right as an American.
1. Vaccines cause autism
2. Humans have no impact on global warming
3. Evolution is not real
4. The earth is 10000 years old and dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark.
5. The free market will bring affordable health care to everyone despite their age, health or wealth.
6. Trickle down economics works.
7. Cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
8. The EPA is unnecessary, because in an economy free of regulation, companies won’t pollute the environment.
9. Pollution has no impact on our health.
10. The lower your tax rate the more taxes you collect.
11. Americans have the best health care in the world.
12. Our national deficit is caused by poor people getting food stamps.
13. Women can’t get pregnant if they are raped, unless they enjoyed it.
The rest of us are forced to live with and respect the decisions of Republicans all the time, despite their aversion to facts.
I think #1 was the position of both of the Democrat candidates for President wasn’t it?
Number 2 – We don’t – have you seen this? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
1 – The world has been both far warmer and fare cooler than it is now and we weren’t around to cause any of it.
3 – Evolution, yeah well, ya got me there – not. I would however like you to show me the complete fossil record that proves evolution as currently pitched is demonstrated. While I don’t believe in 6 literal days, I’m a selectionist, not an evolutionist for the record.
4 – If you follow the “interpretive literal Biblical time line” then the Earth is around 7,000 years old, not ten but there’s a problem with that literal translation, you can find it in 2nd Peter 3: “‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day”
5. The “free market” created the greatest economy and standard of living in the world
The rest of your points are as full of bovine excreta as the first so I’ll quit now.
97.5% of climate scientist and 77% of all scientist believe human activity is accelerating global warming. I suspect a majority who do not are employed by industries that pollute. But as I said, it is your god given right to ignore science that does not reach the conclusion you want. You are in good company with your brethren in the House. Especially those who receive contributions from the Koch brothers.
In 1,600 BCE, 100% of Egyptians believed that the sun traveled across the sky in a sun boat and was eaten every night by a serpent.
In 0 CE, There were shrines to the “unknown Gods” just in case we missed one.
Until the 1800s, spontaneous generation was a near universally accepted fact – then that pesky Pasteur proved it fallacious.
Einstein’s static universe theory was the widely accepted view of the universe until the Hubble telescope blew the whole idea apart.
+1 on this. The hubris of man knows no bounds. No one still knows exactly how life started on Earth, we still can’t even leave our solar system, accurately predict specific weather patterns 2 weeks out, etc. et al….and yet everyone is always so sure that the “science is right” just because there’s consensus…
More importantly though, it’s the idea that gov’ts and their payroll scientists around the world that would profit from taxing us for “global warming” that bothers me the most.
Ok, so let’s treat science like superstition because it builds on itself over time and admits when it’s wrong? That’s backwards. Religion is superstition and full of fallacy because it demands unquestioning belief regardless of observable facts. Don’t poor mouth science because it is flexible enough to grow with the increase in knowledge and data.
Okay Charlie so science – even “settled science” may be wrong. So lets go ahead and destroy 2,000 years of progress on the chance that we might raise the temperature a degree or two?
In 1,600 BCE, 100% of Egyptians believed that the sun traveled across the sky in a sun boat and was eaten every night by a serpent.
I am willing to bet this is not true. Some of those priest studying the stars and mapping the night sky, must have thought. This is and absurd story, but hey people bring us gold and food when we say this so who are we to argue. Later those same early astronomers accurately determined the earth was round and calculated its diameter, so someone must have questioned the mythos.
In 0 CE, There were shrines to the “unknown Gods” just in case we missed one.
What does this have to do with science, nothing.
Until the 1800s, spontaneous generation was a near universally accepted fact – then that pesky Pasteur proved it fallacious.
So because some dark ages (by science standards) scientists came up with theories they had no ability to test, and got it wrong, all science is dispensable? I guess this shoots a hole in your vaccination argument. It also clearly makes my point that Republicans accept science that reaches the conclusion they want and reject science that reaches a conclusion they don’t want.
Einstein’s static universe theory was the widely accepted view of the universe until the Hubble telescope blew the whole idea apart.
Hubble was a scientist, so by your last comment we can pretty much ignore him if we don’t like his conclusions.
But even so, with the emergence of string theory and the possibility of a multiverse, static state reality is back in the picture. Maybe Einstein was right. Reality may actually be infinite and eternal. Which would mean we have had this same argument an infinite number of times, and every time you were wrong.
Okay, dragging you along the trail of development of scientific theory didn’t work so let’s try a different tack.
What is there to gain or lose on the argument of anthropogenic global climate change? Is there a chance that the science is intentionally being skewed in order to accomplish some agenda other than a genuine concern for climate change? If not, then why is evidence of just that thing popping up more and more? If so, then who gains from winning the argument?
Now lets look at the record:
Wasn’t there a spike far more significant than the oft discussed (and debunked) “hockey stick” during the Holocene? (answer yes, there was)
Along about 4,800 BCE didn’t global temperature “sky rocket” in a 50 year period by more than a degree and a half for “no particular” reason? (answer, yes, it did)
Didn’t it happen again with a greater swing of almost 2 degrees during the Roman Climate Optimum along about 2,200 BCE? (answer – yes, it did, must have been those Roman Suburbans and Coal fire power plants)
Didn’t the temperature swing by almost two degrees between 600 CE and 1600 or so? (answer yes, we call that era the “medieval warm up” and the “little ice age”)
Of course it is possible that there is a global conspiracy by climate scientist to trick the world into believing in something that does not exist. Certainly the Koch Brothers and Republicans think so. To what end I am not certain. But I don’t think this is likely. So I will choose the far more likely scenario. Which is, they actually believe human activity is affecting global warming.
Likewise, the majority could be wrong, and the 2.5% of climate scientists and 23% of other scientists who don’t believe human activity affects global warming or who have no opinion could be right. But again, I have to make a logical choice, so I go with the vast majority of scientists. Since I am not a climate scientist, I am not going to speculate on what could or could not be happening. I will have to leave that to the experts. But I see little down side to taking the threat seriously.
As I said, it is your god given right to reject the science if you do not like its findings. Republicans do that all the time. Especially when they are paid to do so.
Well, you addressed the politics, how about the science?
I like it (even if I don’t know how accurate the details are). Even more important, to my mind are questions that no one cares to think about:
(1) What amount of money would have to be spent to stop global warming completely (not just to slow it a bit)? I have read that the number may be above $1 quadrillion, but I think no one even thinks about this.
(2) Is warmer worse or better? I may be biased a little when I ask this question during winter in Wisconsin (in a place that was under a quarter-mile thick glacier 25,000 years ago). Generally speaking, I would guess warmer is much better — it increases both the growing season and the area of the globe that can be used for food production. It increases the water content of the atmosphere (more rain, not less — water is the main “greenhouse gas”).
(3) Why does no one think of alternatives to disrupting the economy? One scientist suggested that injecting the particulates spewed from volcanos into the upper atmosphere could reduce temperatures relatively cheaply and easily.
Too bad you weren’t ever given a course in logical fallacies. Perhaps 99.9% of western scientists (natural philosophers was the term then) believed that the sun went around the earth. This illustrates two logical fallacies — (1) that authorities can’t be used to argue the truth of a matter, and (2) that large numbers of people can’t be used to argue the truth of a matter.
I receive nothing from the Koch brothers. I study the facts, as you may do. The facts, as far as I can discern them, indicate that we are in the 8th interglacial period in an “ice age” that goes back more than 2 million years. If this ice age ends, Antarctica will no longer be covered by a permanent ice sheet.
Looking at the long-term history makes the claim of human-caused global warming seem dubious at best.
If you want a more educated opinion, google “Al Gore is a Greenhouse Gasbag” — an interview with a University of Pennsylvania paleo-geologist.
“industries”
I hope you’re talking about those who have the most to lose-grant funded propagators of a lie. Climatology is for third rate PhD candidates whom rely on grants, which is political in nature.
“Free market”? You mean one, where on the way to being the “greatest” has to pass legislation in order to prevent gross exploitation of those same “free” markets and the people who toiled in them? The economy that has created unacceptable levels of poverty for people who work, an unacceptable level of poverty for the elderly until legislation was passed to reduce that poverty? The economy that leaves millions without economic security or realistic opportunity? The economic environment is interdependent with the political and social environment. While the economy has helped many do very well, a lack of real social mobility and opportunity has created obstacles and barriers–many of which are a result of the political.
Which adds item #14 to the list above: that the rewards of this great economy are there for anyone willing to work hard and persevere. You just have to want it badly enough
“I would however like you to show me the complete fossil record that proves evolution as currently pitched is demonstrated. While I don’t believe in 6 literal days, I’m a selectionist, not an evolutionist for the record.”
You can’t research that yourself? So, you’re lazy and stupid? That’s no way to go through life, son.
It doesn’t exist.
Transitional fossils don’t real, brutha. Satan buried the fossils 6,000 years ago anyways. Teach the controversy the atheist liberals don’t want you to hear!
The problem is that a doctor’s “x years of medical training” don’t mean squat here. No doctor is personally verifying the vaccine dose that you are receiving. A doctor can say, yes, generally speaking vaccines are great, everybody loves them. But does he know exactly what is in the vial he injects into you? Does anyone really know? IMO they need to step up their transparency, labeling requirements, and have some independent, third party verification system so that people restore their trust in the vaccines. I personally think it is a failure of vaccine manufacturers to resort to fear and force to sell their product. If their product is so great, why do they need to scare parents and pass laws to make people take it?
Don’t you just hate it when someone, like yourself, acts in an obnoxius self-important way. All you had to do was read the rest of the article. Dr. Paul explains in language even you should understand as to why he “respects” her decision.
Well… I guess I’ll just have to “respect” your opinion.
I respect your opinion.
anti-vaxxers = ultimate narcissists
Huh, & all along I thought it was the collectivists that know what’s best for everyone.
Didn’t his son take a jab with a vaccine before he opposed it?
Actually, Rand just got a “booster” shot the other day in trying to mitigate his disastrous “shushing” of a female intereviewer on TV.
Rand has no guiding principles…he’s Romney 2.0 and will change views to whatever is politically expedient.
He’s fallen on both sides of the issue, and been purposefully duplicitous.
Actually, he got that booster before his trip to Guatemala a few months ago. Don’t you just hate it when you think you are being so smart and it turns out you are being stupid?
“Actually, he got that booster before his trip to Guatemala a few months ago.”
Uh, no. “turns out you are being stupid”
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/03/rand-paul-gets-a-booster-vaccination/
“Senator Rand Paul, facing a backlash over his comments that cast doubt on whether he believes vaccines can pose a health risk to children, asserted on Tuesday that he believes vaccinations are indeed safe and that all parents should have their children inoculated.
To prove his point, Mr. Paul invited a reporter with him to watch him get his booster vaccination for Hepatitis A.”
No, it turns out you are being stupid. He recently got a “booster” for a vaccine he took a year ago.
Your stupid, biased comment was inteded to lead people to believe that the senator was getting a vaccine because of the controversy when in fact, he had received the vaccine a year ago, proving that he does in fact believe in getting vaccines, and not just as a publicity stunt as you have tried to indicate.
“No, it turns out you are being stupid. He recently got a “booster” for a vaccine he took a year ago.”
I can’t fix your comprehension moron.
“Your stupid, biased comment was inteded to lead people to believe that the senator was getting a vaccine”
Here’s my quote you idiot:
“Actually, Rand just got a “booster” shot the other day in trying to mitigate his disastrous “shushing” of a female intereviewer on TV.”
Holy fuck are you stupid. If you can’t even read and understand simple sentenes you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Just think, if gov’t had a literacy test before they’d allow you to vote, you couldn’t!
Maybe it’s hard to see the words with your lips firmly planted on Rand’s anus.
Like I said, you stupid fuck face loser, you are nothing but a troll trying to stir up shit where none exists. Fuck off asswipe. I guess you shouldn’t be allowed to vote when you call other people stupid, when you can’t even spell, “intereviewer”, or write a cogent statement, or properly punctuate your feeble attempts to join a few words together in a sentence.
Maybe it’s hard to see the words with your lips planted firmly on your own anus.
“Like I said, you stupid fuck face loser, you are nothing but a troll trying to stir up shit where none exists.”
You can’t understand a sentence and now I’m a fuck face? All you got is a fat fingered “interviewer” spelling in trade for your inability to construct an argument let alone understand one?
Tell you what internet tough guy, you win.
You’ve beaten me with stupidity by the virtue of expertise.
Now, piss off coward.
Right I win, because I am right. I do want to thank you for the laughs. What a loser you are.
LMFAO at your weenie little reply. Now go back down in your grannies basement and play your video games and dream of actually having a girlfriend.
“Right I win, because I am right.”
lol, whatever you tell yourself to feel better for being unable to comprehend and formulate an argument is fine by me.
I’m not one to make people feel bad. I’m a helper.
I have a girlfriend btw, it’s your Mom. She likes anal, but only before blowing me.
LOL… that’s a great response. I really got a great chuckle from that one. The very image of you, a 16 year old little pimple faced punk trying to have sex with my 85 year old mother is so bizzaro world crazy. The fact is at 85 years old, she could still kick your little pansy ass. No I think you had better continue to live in your grandmother’s basement, play video games, and dream of having sex because that is the only sex you are ever likely to have.
“The very image of you, a 16 year old little pimple faced punk trying to have sex with my 85 year old mother ”
The very fact you pictured it makes you very, very sick.
So you want to have anal sex with my mother and that makes me sick? You really have a perverted, sick world view.
Rand actually nailed that interview.
Here we have the old question of common sense. Who decides when to vaccinate , with what ? Vaccinations are, for the most part, safe to use. They should be used. If a parent doesn’t want the child vaccinated they should be willing to pay the price. No public ed. no entry into clubs , groups etc. The problem arises when some do gooder in office makes the case like Texas and many innocent people suffer because of it. Again , trying to fix stupid . Parents : get the vaccination and grow up. Or I should say, let your child grow up.
It is probably a bad idea as Ron Paul points out to let politicians and lobbyists decide when and with what to inject our kids with. Just saying. Doesn’t mean I don’t get the science, just means I don’t trust that any elected representative does. Give it some transparency and a third party verification method and people will have nothing bad to say about vaccines anymore.
Very true. Politicians and lobbyists do such a good job with our money, they may as well have our children too. LOL The knowledgeable third party would make sense.
“Here we have the old question of common sense. Who decides when to vaccinate, with what ?”
The people who have spent their life training to do just that. We don’t sit around and say “Who decides what materials to build that bridge out of?” We let the engineers who are trained make that decision. It’s not an old question, it’s a stupid question.
No one spends their entire life training for that.
The doctor prescribing you a vaccine literally knows nothing about it.
Fine. Don’t get your kid vaccinated. Then home school them. If you want to send them to a public school then you get them vaccinated. It’s as simple as that. Why is this even a debate?
How many vaccines? When should they be administered? Who makes them? Who verifies what is in them? Who determines what additional ingredients are safe and/or necessary? It’s like if you work with raw sewage, you have to get a whole host of vaccines related to what you will be exposed to. So who is making the determination of what we will be exposed to and what information are they basing it on? If we have successfully eradicated a disease as is frequently claimed by vaccine proponents, then for how many more generations will it be necessary to continue to vaccinate against? This issue is anything but simple. Not to mention, how much are certain groups profiting off of vaccinating the population?
The only raw sewage here is the crap being spewed by those who don’t want to get vaccinated.
How many vaccines? The ones that Doctor’s say kids that age need
When should they be administered? Before they walk into the first day.
Who makes them? School registration. No vaccs documentation, no school. Period.
Who verifies what is in them? The same people that do now.
Who determines what additional ingredients are safe and/or necessary? Ingredients? You talk about vaccines like they are baking a cake. Doctors determine what’s in vaccines. That’s why they went to medical school and you didn’t.
It’s like if you work with raw sewage, you have to get a whole host of vaccines related to what you will be exposed to. So who is making the determination of what we will be exposed to and what information are they basing it on? Doctors and scientists. Not politicians and bloggers.
If we have successfully eradicated a disease as is frequently claimed by vaccine proponents, then for how many more generations will it be necessary to continue to vaccinate against? However many the doctors and scientist say.
This issue is anything but simple. – Yes it is. Very simple. You are just making it more complex than necessary. “Deliberately obtuse” is the term.
Not to mention, how much are certain groups profiting off of vaccinating the population? Thank you Oliver Stone… and that’s the problem with any debate in this country. Paranioa about “agenda” trumps common sense.
And if you disagree with the doctors and scientists… Home school. It’s your choice.
Which doctors and which scientists? Have you ever heard of thalidomide? So a Dr. like Ron Paul is now an immunotherapy expert? Thought he was an ObGyn. So a “scientist” now knows everything about every subject? You are naive to think that your pediatrician is making a personal recommendation, it is a national program to generate herd immunity. Therefore the decision is most likely made by the CDC. So your level of trust in a given vaccine is determined by your trust of the manufacturer, the regulator (CDC) and the employees making a specific batch. Not your doctor. The reality of the situation is that it is easier to scare people into taking their medicine than it is to have transparency and legitimate third party verification.
Which doctors and which scientists?
-The ones who are qualified to make those decisions, you know, the ones who do it NOW. Keep in mind this debate isn’t happening because something terrible happened with a vaccine that didn’t work. The debate is happening because a bunch of parents who are easily brainwashed decided to help bring back measles.
Have you ever heard of thalidomide? So a Dr. like Ron Paul is now an immunotherapy expert? Thought he was an ObGyn. So a “scientist” now knows everything about every subject?
-Did I say all doctors and all scientists can weigh in as authorities on all things? Oh, that wasn’t me? It must be that straw man you just built.
You are naive to think that your pediatrician is making a personal recommendation, it is a national program to generate herd immunity.
-I don’t want my pediatrician making the choices on vaccines. That’s above her pay grade and should be make by people at the CDC and national research institutes like that.
Therefore the decision is most likely made by the CDC.
-Yeah. Like I say. The ones who are making the decisions now. There is nothing wrong with the vaccine process in this country. There is something wrong with the ignorance virus.
So your level of trust in a given vaccine is determined by your trust of the manufacturer, the regulator (CDC) and the employees making a specific batch. Not your doctor.
Who said “My doctor”? It must’ve been that straw man you keep yelling at, ’cause it wasn’t me.
The reality of the situation is that it is easier to scare people into taking their medicine than it is to have transparency and legitimate third party verification.
-The reality is, Jenny McCarthy had a bigger megaphone than an uniformed actress should have and here we are…
So long as I ain’t got to pay for public school. Sounds great.
Oh wait. You want me to pay for that too?
Exactly. I mean, its not as though we are talking about an unborn child. These kids have already been born. Their parents can let them die if they want. Its not the roll of government to protect the life and health of children. That is the parent’s job. What right does government have to interfere in what a parent does or does not do for or to his child. I mean for god sakes, next thing I know you will be telling me I can’t lock my child in a closet and force him to live on holy water and eat communing wafers when he has been possessed by a demon.
So, you are equating not getting your kid vaccinated with locking him in a closet and feeding him water and wafers and believing he’s possessed?
Ok…..I see how the two compare I suppose.
Both situations have the same intellectual validity.
Nah.
Slippery slope my friend, slippery slope. If we start letting politician decide when someone has or has not been possessed, who knows what they will want to decide next.
Again, DON’t get the shots. I don’t care. But let ‘The Market’ decide, and if it is proven I got measles from you because you decided to make a ‘choice’, I can sue for damages. Just like I can sue if you decide to ‘choose’ to drink and drive and hit me.
I think your viewpoint is sound from a libertarian perspective.
You don’t force anyone to do anything, but if they cause harm then they are responsible.
Kudos to you on that. Dr. Walter Block agrees with your stance as well.
You must be one of those damn trial lawyers. Sue, sue, sue. We need tort reform to make sure this can’t happen.
Not at all. Hate lawyers. But if people are going to be THAT stupid and not get vacationed, they need to be held accountable.
Can I sue you if your lifestyle choices effect my personal income in the form of tax increases?
Get sick- you ain’t suing anybody.
Heck they can’t even nail people who purposefully had unprotected sex to transfer HIV.
RON PAUL IS A COMPLETE IDIOT, AND HIS SON TOO!
I find caps are indicative of idiocy. But, opinions are like assholes.
Well, I guess we all know what you are with your opinion.
as well as you.
too sha’
Your writing style is quite impressive.
Sometimes is just best to get right to the point.
And, I think my comment about covers the entire issue with Mr. Paul and his son quite eloquently.
1. You mean it’s, not is
2. Your comment is not “eloquent”
It’s means it is, not is.
“Jane You ignorant slut.”
Ron Paul is right about the slippery slope, but it is clear that we have been sliding down this slope for a century or more. Government is force, and nothing limits the use of force except countervailing force. There is no countervailing force to Government. As a result, we have a society where everything that is not mandatory is forbidden.
Society should work to encourage people to live healthy lives, but when some members of society feel empowered to force others to do as they are told, we have an unhealthy society. The stress of being forced to do things against our will is of no concern to those causing the stress.
I wonder if this unhealthy society will soon force everyone to follow a mandatory diet — as they do in mandatory schools with a mandatory diet.
wRONg Paul’s most important “issue”…pandering to the conspiracy crowd about vaccines….like such as Alex Jones and his son Rand Paul…