|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/politics/rand-paul-linked-to-association-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons.html
WASHINGTON — Back in 2009, when Rand Paul was pursuing his long-shot bid to win Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary, he spoke to a small physicians’ association that has publicized discredited medical theories, including possible links between vaccines and autism and between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.
At the time, Mr. Paul, an ophthalmologist, was no stranger to the group, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He boasted at its annual meeting that he had been a member for more than two decades and that he relied on its research, statistics and views about the role of government in medicine.
...Dr. Jane Orient, the executive director of AAPS, which is based in Tucson, said that she believed that the science behind vaccination risks was far from settled and that hundreds of parents had reported that their children had had severe deficits after an inoculation...
...The AAPS stance on childhood vaccines is not its only controversial one. Its periodical, Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, has published reports suggesting a link between abortions and higher rates of breast cancer, a tie rejected by an expert panel of the National Cancer Institute. Another report contended that illegal immigrants brought disease into this country and benefited if their babies were born with disabilities...
...A spokesman for Mr. Paul, Brian Darling, said that the senator’s association with the group should not be taken to mean that he reflexively backed its agenda.
“He agreed with the group when they opposed Obamacare, but I can’t imagine he supports every position they’ve ever taken,” Mr. Darling said.
|
On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted.
Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion.
Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly!
|
On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly!
I've seen juries go awry and make decisions based upon stupid shit or other things that they're not supposed to. That's not what happened here. In this case, the only eyewitness to see the fight, testified that he saw Trayvon beating the shit out of Zimmerman. That's about as clear cut as it gets. As I remarked at the time, the case was over as soon as that guy got on the stand, and the charges should never have been pressed.
|
On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly!
The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what.
|
On February 04 2015 18:56 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 11:56 Danglars wrote:On February 04 2015 11:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:A bill funding the Department of Homeland Security failed in the Senate Tuesday because it would block the president's executive action on deportations. The question now is, what will Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell try next?
The department runs out of money on Feb. 27. Texas senator and potential presidential candidate Ted Cruz insists DHS not get any money unless Republicans get to undo the president's immigration policies. That places McConnell in a dilemma — how does he placate Cruz and his allies while avoiding a shutdown of the agency?
Republican Cruz has vowed he will stop at nothing to block the president's executive action on immigration. And when you ask him exactly how he intends to do that, he says it's already in writing. Go look it up.
"I wrote a long op-ed two months ago, laying [out] precisely what we should do. We should use the power of confirmations and we should use the power of the purse," Cruz said as he slipped into an elevator at the Capitol.
His op-ed argues those are the two ways to defeat the president's executive action. Block all nominations, except those vital to national security. And deny funding for Obama's plan to defer deportations for some 5 million immigrants living here illegally.
Problem for Cruz is, he can't actually make either proposal happen.
"If you're a coalition of one or five, you can gum up the works for a little bit of time, but it's very hard to grind the Senate to a halt," said Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution. Source Congressional leadership has confirmations and the power of the purse. We've already heard McConnell surrender one of those options, not good. I don't see either house or senate stopping this, the response has just been too tepid. Republicans will suffer a big hit not delivering on campaign promises and the dearth of leadership will continue. Outside chance of renegade tea party types bailing on Boehner in big enough numbers to force him into action. So, question regarding that "power of the purse" thing. How can you block funding for not deporting people? To me that does not sound like something that costs money. Deporting them, that would require policemen, cars, planes, administrative efforts to find out where to deport them to, etc...But not doing any of that should not cost money.
The language is visible in the Aderholt amendment (house.gov) directing that funds made available to the DHS in the running of their department shall not be used to implement the amnesty dictated in memoranda issued by Obama. The USCIS, an agency under the executive branch, would be stopped from issuing work permits to illegal aliens. You might think that the bill and amendments are about "not deporting people," but it's really simply stopping the conferral of legal status to classes of illegal immigrants. See Pew, for instance.
|
On February 05 2015 09:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! I've seen juries go awry and make decisions based upon stupid shit or other things that they're not supposed to. That's not what happened here. In this case, the only eyewitness to see the fight, testified that he saw Trayvon beating the shit out of Zimmerman. That's about as clear cut as it gets. As I remarked at the time, the case was over as soon as that guy got on the stand, and the charges should never have been pressed.
Yes, it's clear cut that, since there was only one relevant eyewitness whose testimony itself was hardly unimpeachable, the jury had to render a not guilty verdict. One could even argue that the case was over the moment discovery ended and the trial began given the obviously incomplete nature of the evidence at hand.
|
On February 05 2015 09:11 farvacola wrote:
Yes, it's clear cut that, since there was only one relevant eyewitness whose testimony itself was hardly unimpeachable, the jury had to render a not guilty verdict. And I'd argue that the case was over the moment discovery ended and the trial began given the obviously incomplete nature of the evidence at hand.
Did you even watch the trial? The DA had nothing on that guy.
|
Yeah well, the DA was pathetically bad, and my opinion of him as well a number of other prominent stateside attorneys just gets worse the more and more I learn. In any case, spending a ton of time impeaching the quality of the one proximate eyewitness on the defendant's side wasn't going to make a difference anyways.
|
On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what.
I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself.
|
On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself.
When did that happen?
|
On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself.
Sorry to get in the way of a good circle jerk, but your framing of the issue is not consistent with the statements. This isn't an issue of individual choice to not vaccinate vs the collective right to safety against that communicable disease.
Paul's primary example with his own children was that he felt uncomfortable with the standard vaccination schedule and wanted it done differently, with some vaccinations delayed and spread out. He never took a position against vaccination as a whole, in fact he praised it. But he tried to frame it as a question of medical bureaucratic standards vs individual choice to do things differently. It seems he doesn't like doctors and bureaucrats telling him what's best for him, which is one of those things that publicly nobody agrees with but lots of people ignore their doctor's advice. It's interesting because he's supposed to be a doctor himself, but maybe he's just living the adage that doctors make the worst patients.
It was still a dumb place to make a stand for libertarian attitudes, but the framing is different from what you're saying. Also, this isn't ruining "Republicans", just Rand Paul. Nobody is talking about Chris Christie any more.
|
On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen?
When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks.
On February 05 2015 09:52 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. Sorry to get in the way of a good circle jerk, but your framing of the issue is not consistent with the statements. This isn't an issue of individual choice to not vaccinate vs the collective right to safety against that communicable disease. Paul's primary example with his own children was that he felt uncomfortable with the standard vaccination schedule and wanted it done differently, with some vaccinations delayed and spread out. He never took a position against vaccination as a whole, in fact he praised it. But he tried to frame it as a question of medical bureaucratic standards vs individual choice to do things differently. It seems he doesn't like doctors and bureaucrats telling him what's best for him, which is one of those things that publicly nobody agrees with but lots of people ignore their doctor's advice. It's interesting because he's supposed to be a doctor himself, but maybe he's just living the adage that doctors make the worst patients. It was still a dumb place to make a stand for libertarian attitudes, but the framing is different from what you're saying. Also, this isn't ruining "Republicans", just Rand Paul. Nobody is talking about Chris Christie any more.
The point is that medical bureaucratic standards are established as a result of science and statistics. They are the most correct perspective that exists. A parent choosing anything else is a decision to be less correct for the sake of some silly idea of freedom.
|
are all republicans anti-vaccination, or just a subset? honestly, this whole anti-vaccination trend seems to me to be overblown.
|
On February 05 2015 09:55 dAPhREAk wrote:
are all republicans anti-vaccination, or just a subset? honestly, this whole anti-vaccination trend seems to me to be overblown.
Very few. Same as Democrats.
|
On February 05 2015 09:55 dAPhREAk wrote:
are all republicans anti-vaccination, or just a subset? honestly, this whole anti-vaccination trend seems to me to be overblown.
Not all, but Christie has spoken in favor of parent's rights to choose. It is not overblown because it shows a perspective that is only valid if it is purely for the sake of decision making. It is similar to how kucinich is shown to be a dumbass because he is against GMOs basically just because corporations make them. It frames everything else he says as misguided, similar to how Christie saying a parent should have the right to choose is misguided. It shows that he doesn't consider statistics and science when deciding that sort of thing. Spending a moment to think about cost:benefit and decide when taking away rights is appropriate would clearly show vaccinations should be mandatory. But by saying a parent should be able to choose, it shows that he doesn't do that.
|
On February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks.
That's not correct. Parent's rights are not a biological mechanism for spreading disease.
|
On February 05 2015 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks. That's not correct. Parent's rights are not a biological mechanism for spreading disease.
A parent's right to choose not to vaccinate their child provides a biological mechanism for disease to spread. Do you disagree?
|
On February 05 2015 10:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks. That's not correct. Parent's rights are not a biological mechanism for spreading disease. A parent's right to choose not to vaccinate their child provides a biological mechanism for disease to spread. Do you disagree?
Depends if they use that right or not.
|
On February 05 2015 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 10:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On February 05 2015 07:35 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know where the hyperbole accusation comes from because that's quite literally what has happened, and I think don't think what he does qualifies as normal behaviour but maybe that's just me I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks. That's not correct. Parent's rights are not a biological mechanism for spreading disease. A parent's right to choose not to vaccinate their child provides a biological mechanism for disease to spread. Do you disagree? Depends if they use that right or not.
I suppose I made the massively misguided assumption that a right is defended so that it could be used.
|
On February 05 2015 10:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 10:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:02 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:53 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 05 2015 09:27 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 09:09 Mohdoo wrote:On February 05 2015 08:42 farvacola wrote:On February 05 2015 07:37 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't know anything about the DV cases, but the sum of the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case strongly suggested that Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, which is why he was acquitted. Come on now, you know that that isn't what their verdict necessarily meant lol. I mean, its entirely possible, a Florida jury doesn't exactly have stats on its side when it comes to perfunctory logic and problem solving, but the not guilty verdict may also stand for a jury that just couldn't reconcile the conflicting and incomplete evidence with BRD. Realistically, if the jury was well instructed, their verdict ought not have come from any positive conclusion. Also, ^lol, this vaccine thing is ruining Republicans left and right. Let those true colors fly! The most illuminating thing about the vaccine debacle is how republicans not only rely on knee-jerk anti-government thoughts, but they will go so far as to defend them without even really thinking about what it means. It's just a matter of less government, no matter what. I'll be honest, I fuckin love it lol. The vaccine debate is a perfect example of a situation where the very nature of a real world phenomena, that being disease and how it spreads, runs up against an ideological attachment to individualism. In a very general sense, weighing the right of a parent to not vaccinate their child against the right of the people that said child come into contact with to not worry about virulent disease provides the public with a clear litmus test for determining the quality of a candidate. To make matters even better, that's only one of two very strong arguments in favor of vaccination. The other, that being the right of a child to a certain baseline health and life quality regardless of parentage, speaks for itself. When did that happen? When republicans spoke in favor of a parent's right to choose if their child is vaccinated, regardless of what the CDC thinks. That's not correct. Parent's rights are not a biological mechanism for spreading disease. A parent's right to choose not to vaccinate their child provides a biological mechanism for disease to spread. Do you disagree? Depends if they use that right or not. I suppose I made the massively misguided assumption that a right is defended so that it could be used.
It's OK, no one is perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
