All you have to do is watch an interview with Ron Paul. They're all over the internet, but I would be happy to link some if you can't find them.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
All you have to do is watch an interview with Ron Paul. They're all over the internet, but I would be happy to link some if you can't find them.
Ron Paul was here way before the tea party movement. He's not applicable to the argument.
The guy who essentially founded the modern day movement isn't applicable? Seriously? I guess Descartes isn't applicable to the enlightenment either.
I didn't realize he founded the movement. That's news to everyone. There was nothing original about the tea party anyway. Just like there is nothing new about the AOC movement. Again, my argument is that at the beginning of the movement, they were just as clueless and no more specific about where they wanted to go. That's the same thing any new group faces. It's not specific to the AOC group.
Once again, this was his movement. People were buying in because of his politics. If that doesn't make him applicable, then nobody is ever applicable to anything. I don't even know why we're even arguing this. All the proof I need is in the paragraph I cited. If you can't accept that, then so be it.
Even if I grant you that, you've conveniently ignored the original argument. It wasn't about who started it, it was about them speaking in generalizations and platitudes. No big movement is organized right out of the gate. If you can't accept that, then so be it.
Good grief, these anti-vax people are dumb. Here's a quote from the article:
"the parents who are suing argued that "there is insufficient evidence of a measles epidemic or dangerous outbreak to justify" forced vaccinations, and they accused the city of failing to take the least restrictive measures to end the outbreak."
There is more than enough evidence. They would have more success if they just argued government doesn't have the power to force vaccinations. What the government should do is ban people who don't have vaccinations from any public school and government building. Make the parents financially liable for the cost of an outbreak and allow those infected to sue other parents.
https://abc7ny.com/health/measles-outbreak-parents-file-lawsuit-nyc-shuts-down-school/5251452/
"the parents who are suing argued that "there is insufficient evidence of a measles epidemic or dangerous outbreak to justify" forced vaccinations, and they accused the city of failing to take the least restrictive measures to end the outbreak."
There is more than enough evidence. They would have more success if they just argued government doesn't have the power to force vaccinations. What the government should do is ban people who don't have vaccinations from any public school and government building. Make the parents financially liable for the cost of an outbreak and allow those infected to sue other parents.
https://abc7ny.com/health/measles-outbreak-parents-file-lawsuit-nyc-shuts-down-school/5251452/
Wait, I was told that children could be completely immunized by the time they were 15 months old. How would a fully immunized child in kindergarten contract measles or some other disease?
Information was provided to you in this thread showing you can't be completely immunized by the time you are 15 months old.
Sigh...
From a post on page 160:
"Chickenpox, like measles, is scheduled so that children get their first vaccine dose at 12 months and the second dose at age four years. The second dose can be given as early as three months after the first dose though, especially if your child was recently exposed to chicken pox."
Either way, you have your immunizations by the time you reach kindergarten.
You're quickly approaching Van Dammed territory, brutha.
Your right. I was reading the wrong vaccination. However, those who don't get their shots aren't immunized before kindergarten. Those kids would be the one who could contract it. And despite our best efforts, there is an extremely small group of people who can still get it even if vaccinated. What exactly does any of this have to do with these people being dumb for offering up a bogus argument in a lawsuit or were you referring to my comment about keeping them out of school? They are already required with certain exceptions.
This has to do with your comments that people who don't vaccinate should be banned from government buildings, including public schools. That just isn't a feasible point of view, nor should it be (although it would be nice to get out of jury duty). You're going to tread on the liberties of people because, "there is an extremely small group of people who can still get it even if vaccinated?" Hard Pass.
Getting vaccinated is already a requirement for school. That is nothing new other than the fact that I wouldn't give out exceptions for religion or unfounded personal beliefs. The government can already put restrictions on people coming into government buildings who they feel are a threat. The only new part would be adding unvaccinated people to that list. I don't see how that would be treading on civil liberties, especially since everything can be done remotely now.
What if you don't have internet?
Look, none of this matters. Not being vaccinated doesn't make you a threat to anyone else.
Use the mail or phone.
Tell that to the people who have been infected and will have life long issues as a result.
You can't do everything by mail.
As for sick people, life isn't fair. Not everyone is going to be as healthy as the next person. People give sicknesses to others all the time. If your immune system is that weak, you probably aren't long for this world anyway. I know that's a cold way of looking at things, but I still think it's less cold than infringing on the liberties of others.
Then get an immunization, internet or phone hookup. It's pretty simple and everyone has access to at least one of those things.
You can also help to prevent those sicknesses from spreading and harming society at large. I don't think saying someone can't go in a building is infringing on any liberties. It doesn't prevent access to any government service and you have no constitutional right to enter the building. If you think you do, then that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion.
This is just so wrong. The last time I renewed my license I had to show up in person, I couldn't renew through the mail. When Florida switched over to the Real ID I had to show up in person, I couldn't apply through the mail. What do you do with convicted felons who haven't been immunized? You need to refrain from pushing your religious belief system on everyone else.
I can renew mine online. Guess that's a Florida problem.
Give them an immunization when they are locked up.
This makes no sense for a couple of reasons. One, I've never said this had anything to do with my religion. Two, I would have no religious exemptions which would make me hostile to religion.
I'm not really sure why you want to keep talking about this though. We've both stated our opinion and neither one of us are going to change our opinion. It's kind of a pointless conversation now.
You have to admit to being Van Dammed... I think.
I'm not sure. I think it's rhetorical, like "Is it safe?" in The Marathon Man. You're Dustin Hoffman.
I can usually renew mine online as well, but every so often you still have to go in and perform an eye exam. I'm sure that's the same in every state. Also, if your state ever passes the real ID you'll have to show up with the required documents in order to get one.
So, your solution is to force an immunization on them. That doesn't seem authoritarian in the least...
A personal belief system is no different than a "religion".
Just so you remember, this whole conversation started from the hypocrisy of this whole immunization situation. You should get immunized because it will keep you from getting sick...but it might not keep you from being sick? And then you want to act like some moral authority because some people don't want to get the immunization?
Okay... it was about... whatever is necessary to continue to believe he's not full of shit.
Now, does Trump prefer the scented toilet paper when you wipe his ass, or does it have to be the dye-free TP? Or, is your tongue the usual option?
We already have real id.
Putting them in jail and restricting their freedoms is already authoritarian by nature. This would be no different.
Then you should have said personal belief system and not religion. A person's personal opinions are far from a religion though.
I've never acted like a moral authority. I'm not forcing anyone outside of jail to get immunized. All I'm saying is that they can't go into a building and should have to pay for any outbreak they cause. They can still go through life without a vaccination if they want to.
Why exactly do you always feel the need to be right in an opinion based debate? There are no right or wrong answers with this. Are you upset that I haven't personally attacked you? In the past you seem to always claim victory when someone personally attacks you, so maybe that's what you are trying to do here. If so, don't waste your time because I don't plan on attacking you.
I'm not sure you can properly judge if the tariffs have worked, since his solution to reducing the deficit was to rework trade deals that were causing them. I think it would be better to wait until after the deals have been reached (assuming they will be). For the record, I'm against tariffs so I'm not trying to wipe him.
This is a guy who prides himself on being kicked-off other message boards. Now, think of the effort it takes to make that happen. Then, consider his frequently-posted attitude of "you guys take this place way too seriously"... and you get, what? Exactly... full of shit.
I'm just sharing the tweet and the link. He (Trump) isn't waiting until the deals have been reached. If you watch the video in the link attached, he's insisting that the deficits are getting lower and lower. But, that simply isn't true. I do enjoy it when he flat-out lies and then people who are chained to him come to his rescue and attempt to decipher and interpret what he really meant, or what it's really about. He's a shyster, and has always been a shyster.
Did I ever mention this is a 0 star thread? If not, this is a 0 star thread.
Eh, he doesn't really bother me. He confuses me with his positions and posts sometimes, but I have no major problem with him. I haven't really had many debates with him though.
I'm not trying to say what he really meant and I'm certainly not chained to him. I didn't even notice the video.
I thought you said you didn't participate in political threads?
I thought this was a popcorn thread. My bad.
No problem. I'm not sure where you would get that idea though. I think it's pretty obvious from the title that it's political.
Interesting case. I wonder how long it will take for someone to come along and try to trademark a business with the "n" word in it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tions-vulgar-trademarks-like-fuct/3472595002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tions-vulgar-trademarks-like-fuct/3472595002/
Free to go through life without being able to use any of the public services that they pay for? Will you allow them not to pay taxes since they can't use public services? BTW, would this include the bus, because they won't have a driver's liscense. Should they be forced to take a cab everywhere? Walk? What a joke this argument is. Every so often, people reveal themselves as the NAZIesque authoritian that they really are.
It doesn't take much to get kicked off a message board, bro. Not in this day and age.
I believe the very first post was political. That's why we try to keep all the politics in this one thread.
