|
United States7483 Posts
On September 14 2011 02:30 Signet wrote:Additionally, is there even proof that the vaccine did in fact cause the girl's mental disability? For example, with autism the symptoms usually start showing up around the age of 3. Some parents blame this on a vaccination that happened before that age, even though the CDC and numerous medical journals have published clinical studies finding no link between the two. It's possible that the mother is simply looking for something to blame -- quite understandable of course. But that is a reason why it could be dangerous for a candidate who is willfully ignorant of science and pretty gullible to become president.
Autism is, based on how much we know about it so far, a developmental disease. It does have a strong link with the age of the mother when she gives birth. It has no known link whatsoever to vaccines.
So yeah, vaccines don't cause mental retardation. Bachman is a moron. Additionally, that article a long time ago that started the whole freakout over vaccines was proven to be falsified.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 14 2011 02:35 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 02:24 Suvorov wrote:
Should we pick puppet number one or puppet number two? Gee I don't know. I guess ultimately it doesn't matter at all. Facing reality is too much however, so let's keep on pretending red is red and blue is blue, that all is true and things look good.
I must give it to you though, from republican nominations to psychology and pastors, you've done it again. fwiw, I've read studies by the APA suggesting that religious people live longer. They concluded that churches provide a social support group, which contributes to positive health outcomes. Not all that surprising, really.
That has less to do with being religious and more to do with having friends.
People really need to learn how to reduce variables and focus studies if they want to conduct the studies. Do you have a link available to the studies so that I might read them?
|
On September 14 2011 00:44 Refused. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 00:28 Pillage wrote:On September 14 2011 00:23 Refused. wrote:On September 14 2011 00:11 Pillage wrote:This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president. I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events... - Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime) The approval ratings also beg otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Ronald_Reagan.pngSo unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had. Get informed. And he still found the time to hate homosexuals and cause the massacre of innocent Guatemalans. At least he defeated those evil Soveits tho Thanks for contributing intelligent, thought provoking information to this discussion. I'm not even going to bother to address this as it was probably written by a four year old. Intelligent discussion? You mean the one where Reagan overturned the arms embargo administered by Carter to the repressive Guatemalan regime in the 1980s? Which resulted in the sales of millions of dollars worth of military equipment during the beginning of the 80s? In 1981, the United States ambassador to Guatemala even met with leaders who claimed that they would continue with the repression regardless of their actions. "But the Reagan administration was set on whitewashing the ugly scene. A State Department "white paper," released in December 1981, blamed the violence on leftist "extremist groups" and their "terrorist methods," inspired and supported by Cuba's Fidel Castro. " It's alright to massacre innocent people as long as their are dirty, commie, leftists right? http://www.politicalaffairs.net/reagan-administration-knew-of-guatemalan-atrocities-documents-reveal/I bet they skipped that little tidbit on the Reagan poster in your bedroom that you salute every day when you wake up eh?
I like how you completely ignore my other points and point to the one negative thing in Reagan's presidency. Grasping at straws much?
Do you really think I didn't know about this? Now here's why we did it.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Consider the timeframe this occurred in.
USSR is fighting in Afghanistan, seeking to expand its influence even more. This is greatly concerning to us as communism was the enemy of the time, now its on the backburner to radical Islam. Now we see a revolt in Central America that seeks to put a sure sympathizer of our largest enemy, the USSR, right on our doorstep. You can connect the dots from there, as it's foolish to allow a sure enemy to fester right in your back yard. While the death of innocents is regrettable, we were merely looking out for our best interests.
And if you think that appeasing our enemies to prevent their aggression is a viable strategy, you can ask Neville Chamberlain how that worked out for Europe.
Ever since president Kennedy set the precedent for containment, situations where communism (Our greatest enemy at the time) tried to spring up have been dealt without the kid gloves on, so I'm sorry If you can't stomach the results of imperfect diplomacy with ruthless, tyrannical nations.
Edit: Reworded a few sentences and reformatted.
Edit 2: And sadly, I don't have a Reagan poster, that's a funny joke though, have you ever considered doing stand-up comedy?
|
I love reading this thread. It's baffling how it gets so off-topic.
That's awesome that Bachmann has decided to become a doctor all of a sudden. The sad thing is she probably won't die off fast enough, as there are so many who support her that will actually believe what she is saying. Huntsman warned of the party becoming the anti-science party. He may as well be a Mormon Prophet.
I wonder if/when Ron Paul's message that our foreign policy is (at least partially) to blame for terrorist attacks like 9/11 will make headway. The party last night wanted nothing to do with it, but then again that room was probably filled with more extreme members of the party.
So it turns out that Rick Perry is right that a lot of people agree with him that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It's just too bad that even if you get a billion people to say and think it, it still won't make it true. Moderates (hopefully) know this, and if this trend continues with him not letting up on this idea, he should lose the nomination to Romney.
|
Bachmann thinks that "put yourself so far to the right of everyone else that when people call you crazy you look like a martyr" is a legitimate winning strategy.
And to be fair, I don't know if it is or not anymore.
|
On September 14 2011 02:40 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 02:35 Signet wrote:On September 14 2011 02:24 Suvorov wrote:
Should we pick puppet number one or puppet number two? Gee I don't know. I guess ultimately it doesn't matter at all. Facing reality is too much however, so let's keep on pretending red is red and blue is blue, that all is true and things look good.
I must give it to you though, from republican nominations to psychology and pastors, you've done it again. fwiw, I've read studies by the APA suggesting that religious people live longer. They concluded that churches provide a social support group, which contributes to positive health outcomes. Not all that surprising, really. That has less to do with being religious and more to do with having friends. People really need to learn how to reduce variables and focus studies if they want to conduct the studies. Do you have a link available to the studies so that I might read them?
No, I don't -- this was something like 6 years ago when I saw it.
You are correct, the study concluded that organized religion provided a strong social support structure which had the positive effect. Not that God was granting believers longer life or something like that :p
It's tangential at this point anyway -- people generally don't choose to be religious based on the possibility that some auxiliary effect of it will be making friends or networking.
|
On September 14 2011 02:46 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 00:44 Refused. wrote:On September 14 2011 00:28 Pillage wrote:On September 14 2011 00:23 Refused. wrote:On September 14 2011 00:11 Pillage wrote:This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president. I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events... - Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime) The approval ratings also beg otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Ronald_Reagan.pngSo unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had. Get informed. And he still found the time to hate homosexuals and cause the massacre of innocent Guatemalans. At least he defeated those evil Soveits tho Thanks for contributing intelligent, thought provoking information to this discussion. I'm not even going to bother to address this as it was probably written by a four year old. Intelligent discussion? You mean the one where Reagan overturned the arms embargo administered by Carter to the repressive Guatemalan regime in the 1980s? Which resulted in the sales of millions of dollars worth of military equipment during the beginning of the 80s? In 1981, the United States ambassador to Guatemala even met with leaders who claimed that they would continue with the repression regardless of their actions. "But the Reagan administration was set on whitewashing the ugly scene. A State Department "white paper," released in December 1981, blamed the violence on leftist "extremist groups" and their "terrorist methods," inspired and supported by Cuba's Fidel Castro. " It's alright to massacre innocent people as long as their are dirty, commie, leftists right? http://www.politicalaffairs.net/reagan-administration-knew-of-guatemalan-atrocities-documents-reveal/I bet they skipped that little tidbit on the Reagan poster in your bedroom that you salute every day when you wake up eh? I like how you completely ignore my other points and point to the one negative thing in Reagan's presidency. Grasping at straws much? Do you really think I didn't know about this? Now here's why we did it. " The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Consider the timeframe this occurred in. USSR is fighting in Afghanistan, seeking to expand its influence even more. This is greatly concerning to us as communism was the enemy of the time, now its on the backburner to radical Islam. Now we see a revolt in Central America that seeks to put a sure sympathizer of our largest enemy, the USSR, right on our doorstep. You can connect the dots from there, as it's foolish to allow a sure enemy to fester right in your back yard. While the death of innocents is regrettable, we were merely looking out for our best interests. And if you think that appeasing our enemies to prevent their aggression is a viable strategy, you can ask Neville Chamberlain how that worked out for Europe. Ever since president Kennedy set the precedent for containment, situations where communism (Our greatest enemy at the time) tried to spring up have been dealt without the kid gloves on, so I'm sorry If you can't stomach the results of imperfect diplomacy with ruthless, tyrannical nations. Edit: Reworded a few sentences and reformatted.
Ah, the always reliable "kill as many people in order to keep American interests at the forefront" excuse. Are you also someone who legitimately believes the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are justified because we have to save the United States from terrorism? We only had to kill over 100,000 Muslims since the war started to keep our best interests and to keep America safe, right?
In fact, you could replace communism with Islam today and the parallels of stupidity within American foreign policy can still be seen today.
|
On September 14 2011 00:01 Kiarrip wrote:Stimulus doesn't fucking work, how can it. You're taking money from people and giving it back to them but less of it.
As I pointed out earlier, this is most definitely not what stimulus is and is not the model Keynes described.
Keynesian stimulus means deficit spending during recession. You're right about the giving people money, but wrong about the taking it part. In fact, tax cuts during a recession are also Keynesian -- it's all about increasing the deficit.
The stimulus is financed by either printing money or by running a budget surplus (cut spending and/or raise taxes) while the economy is healthy/expanding. Since Keynes distrusted central bankers, supported the gold standard, and was one of the main economists who created the Bretton Woods system, he personally preferred the latter option of having a fiscal surplus during expansion. But printing money can be considered an overlap of Keynesian and monetarist ideas.
|
Ah, the always reliable "kill as many people in order to keep American interests at the forefront" excuse. Are you also someone who legitimately believes the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are justified because we have to save the United States from terrorism? We only had to kill over 100,000 Muslims since the war started to keep our best interests and to keep America safe, right?
Changing the argument again I see.
You just don't seem to get it. As a president you have a responsibility to protect the American People. Carrying out that responsibility sometimes results in some ugly shit happening, but at the end of the day, that's why it's done. I don't understand why you can't get this through your head. You're just in absolute denial about how the world actually works as well as how many people throughout the globe want every single one of us killed. When these people gain the support of powerful organizations, they are a powerful threat that must be neutralized (Not necessarily killed) to the fullest extent of what we are capable of.
As much as you may revile the bolded statements that are written in my previous post, you cannot deny their truth. The rest of the world is far less ethical than us, and they have absolutely no problem forging alliances and stifling the progress of their enemies to advance their interests, and we shouldn't either.
|
On September 14 2011 00:11 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president. I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events... - Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime) The approval ratings also beg otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Ronald_Reagan.pngSo unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had. Get informed.
hahaha
You should read Murray Rothbard's take on the Reagan presidency.
|
On September 14 2011 03:13 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +Ah, the always reliable "kill as many people in order to keep American interests at the forefront" excuse. Are you also someone who legitimately believes the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are justified because we have to save the United States from terrorism? We only had to kill over 100,000 Muslims since the war started to keep our best interests and to keep America safe, right? Changing the argument again I see. You just don't seem to get it. As a president you have a responsibility to protect the American People. Carrying out that responsibility sometimes results in some ugly shit happening, but at the end of the day, that's why it's done. I don't understand why you can't get this through your head. You're just in absolute denial about how the world actually works as well as how many people throughout the globe want every single one of us killed. When these people gain the support of powerful organizations, they are a powerful threat that must be neutralized (Not necessarily killed) to the fullest extent of what we are capable of. As much as you may revile the bolded statements that are written in my previous post, you cannot deny their truth. The rest of the world is far less ethical than us, and they have absolutely no problem forging alliances and stifling the progress of their enemies to advance their interests, and we shouldn't either.
My God, it's like I am reading from the autobiography of Dick Cheney.
|
On September 14 2011 03:14 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 00:11 Pillage wrote:This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president. I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events... - Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime) The approval ratings also beg otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Ronald_Reagan.pngSo unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had. Get informed. hahaha You should read Murray Rothbard's take on the Reagan presidency.
Yeah I've heard about this guy, borderline anarchocapitalist that was mad at even some of the things Reagan did. I think I've seen this somewhere else before it's ringing some bells as I read it.
|
My God, it's like I am reading from the autobiography of Dick Cheney.
Do you have anything meaningful / logical to contribute, or do you just want to keep spitting the petty one-liners?
|
On September 14 2011 03:19 Refused. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 03:13 Pillage wrote:Ah, the always reliable "kill as many people in order to keep American interests at the forefront" excuse. Are you also someone who legitimately believes the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are justified because we have to save the United States from terrorism? We only had to kill over 100,000 Muslims since the war started to keep our best interests and to keep America safe, right? Changing the argument again I see. You just don't seem to get it. As a president you have a responsibility to protect the American People. Carrying out that responsibility sometimes results in some ugly shit happening, but at the end of the day, that's why it's done. I don't understand why you can't get this through your head. You're just in absolute denial about how the world actually works as well as how many people throughout the globe want every single one of us killed. When these people gain the support of powerful organizations, they are a powerful threat that must be neutralized (Not necessarily killed) to the fullest extent of what we are capable of. As much as you may revile the bolded statements that are written in my previous post, you cannot deny their truth. The rest of the world is far less ethical than us, and they have absolutely no problem forging alliances and stifling the progress of their enemies to advance their interests, and we shouldn't either. My God, it's like I am reading from the autobiography of Dick Cheney.
What he said does have some truth in it. In particular, Ron Paul does not want to protect the American people (he hates the government!).
|
Bachmann is such an idiot, first arguing that it was a mandated program even though it had an opt out, then that parents "dont understand" such things [basically accusing the greater portion of texas parents as being too stupid to even ask if there child must get the vaccine], decrying that it does permanent damage and it violates the girls [what?!] and now that it produces retards lol. I'm not sure if her poll numbers will take a hit immediately, given a large body of people just subsume what they hear as fact, but I'm sure in the next debate if she brings up anything like this Perry [and possibly others] will have prepared responses, and her campaign will be effectively over.
|
On September 14 2011 03:21 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 03:14 Mindcrime wrote:On September 14 2011 00:11 Pillage wrote:This shit has been going on since Reagan (probably the worst president in US history) was in office. I can't tell if you're trolling or just that stupid. Either way I'll bite to stick up for my favorite president. I never knew that being the worst president in U.S. history resulted from the following events... - Having your citizens freed by Iran as soon as the word that you've been elected reaches them. - 20, 000, 000 jobs created over his tenure - Enacted TEFRA which closed many tax loopholes - Defeated our greatest enemy to date, the Soviet Union without firing a shot. - Reduced inflation levels from 12.5% to 4% - Purge unqualified recipients from SS while leaving Medicare intact. - Enacted legislation to combat the drug trade (You can't tell me this is a bad thing with all the baggage that drugs bring in terms of crime) The approval ratings also beg otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Ronald_Reagan.pngSo unless you're a progressive who hates having man be independent from the chains of government, hates businesses for making money, being successful, and enriching the lives of thousands of successful people, and reviles the traditions of this country, there is no reason to think he's the worst president we've ever had. Get informed. hahaha You should read Murray Rothbard's take on the Reagan presidency. Yeah I've heard about this guy, borderline anarchocapitalist that was mad at even some of the things Reagan did. I think I've seen this somewhere else before it's ringing some bells as I read it.
What do you mean "even some of the things Reagan did"? Keep reading. Rothbard's dislike (hatred?) of Reagan stems from the fact that Reagan was a statist who was able to convince people that he was a libertarian; basically, that Reagan fooled people like you. He used libertarian rhetoric to co-opt the anti-statist mood of the late 70s and implement a host of policies which expanded the scope and power of the state.
|
Northern Ireland26236 Posts
' I don't understand why you can't get this through your head. You're just in absolute denial about how the world actually works as well as how many people throughout the globe want every single one of us killed.'
As unpopular a sentiment as it is there is a fucking REASON people have this anti-American sentiment. You went around the world destabilising regions for a variety of reasons, either in the effort to prevent the spread of communism, or removing legitimate governments at the behest of big corporate interests. This is not leftist hyperbole, it is how it is.
I don't know maybe I'm naive about how the world works, but if you go around fucking everybody over, it's going to come back and bite you in the ass
|
United States43545 Posts
On September 14 2011 03:24 lizzard_warish wrote:
Bachmann is such an idiot, first arguing that it was a mandated program even though it had an opt out, then that parents "dont understand" such things [basically accusing the greater portion of texas parents as being too stupid to even ask if there child must get the vaccine], decrying that it does permanent damage and it violates the girls [what?!] and now that it produces retards lol. I'm not sure if her poll numbers will take a hit immediately, given a large body of people just subsume what they hear as fact, but I'm sure in the next debate if she brings up anything like this Perry [and possibly others] will have prepared responses, and her campaign will be effectively over.
I'm amazed her campaign managers let her go outside without a gag. Surely she must have some educated professional campaigners who can feel their reputation dying by association with her.
|
On September 14 2011 03:22 Sufficiency wrote:
Ron Paul does not want to protect the American people (he hates the government!).
Are you seriously implying that loving big obtrusive and overreaching government is synonymous with protecting the American people??
|
On September 14 2011 03:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 03:24 lizzard_warish wrote:
Bachmann is such an idiot, first arguing that it was a mandated program even though it had an opt out, then that parents "dont understand" such things [basically accusing the greater portion of texas parents as being too stupid to even ask if there child must get the vaccine], decrying that it does permanent damage and it violates the girls [what?!] and now that it produces retards lol. I'm not sure if her poll numbers will take a hit immediately, given a large body of people just subsume what they hear as fact, but I'm sure in the next debate if she brings up anything like this Perry [and possibly others] will have prepared responses, and her campaign will be effectively over. I'm amazed her campaign managers let her go outside without a gag. Surely she must have some educated professional campaigners who can feel their reputation dying by association with her.
Well, in their defense, Bachmann did need to do something to get her campaign going again -- optimally something that took Perry down a notch. They just chose a really, really bad point to attack Perry on, and they're complicating their error by doubling down on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
