OT: Rand Paul is an idiot

[zk]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]Paul is a retard.

What I’m a little curious about.
Don’t public schools check immunization records?
How did these kids get past that?[/quote]
Retards love company:

“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it,” then Sen. Obama said.

“There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers. But the science right now is inconclusive,” Obama said.

“I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines,” said Clinton.

As for schools, as was said, CA does not have a mandatory vaccination. You can be exempt on personal belief. Which is why Malabu and Beverly Hills have <40% vaccination rate.[/quote]

Those Obama and Clinton comments were made, I believe, in 2008. The Lancet retracted Wakefield's paper in 2010.

[an]

[quote=zk][quote=AN][quote=flu]Paul is a retard.

What I’m a little curious about.
Don’t public schools check immunization records?
How did these kids get past that?[/quote]
Retards love company:

“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it,” then Sen. Obama said.

“There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers. But the science right now is inconclusive,” Obama said.

“I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines,” said Clinton.

As for schools, as was said, CA does not have a mandatory vaccination. You can be exempt on personal belief. Which is why Malabu and Beverly Hills have <40% vaccination rate.[/quote]

Those Obama and Clinton comments were made, I believe, in 2008. The Lancet retracted Wakefield's paper in 2010.[/quote]I still think it was retarded to make those statements, even in 2008. Why didn't they consult with the CDC first before commenting and giving credence to anti-vaxxers claims. That like saying those crazy birthers who claimed that Obama wasn't American before he showed his birth certificate were OK, as long as they only made those claims before Obama show his birth certificates.

[Coronita]

[quote=AN][quote=flu]Paul is a retard.

What I’m a little curious about.
Don’t public schools check immunization records?
How did these kids get past that?[/quote]
Retards love company:

“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it,” then Sen. Obama said.

“There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers. But the science right now is inconclusive,” Obama said.

“I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines,” said Clinton.

As for schools, as was said, CA does not have a mandatory vaccination. You can be exempt on personal belief. Which is why Malabu and Beverly Hills have <40% vaccination rate.[/quote]

You won't get any disagreement from me on that too. It's an equal opportunity retardedness.

[all]

Apples and oranges.

[quote=AN]
“We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it,” then Sen. Obama said.

“There are some people who are suspicious that it’s connected to vaccines and triggers. But the science right now is inconclusive,” Obama said.

[/quote]

Note that ‘this person included’ was a reference to someone in the audience, not Obama itself. He then emphasized the importance of vaccination program: “Part of the reason I think it’s very important to research it is those vaccines are also preventing huge numbers of deaths among children and preventing debilitating illnesses like Polio. And so we can’t afford to junk our vaccine system.”

[quote=AN]
“I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines,” said Clinton.
[/quote]

This is from her response to A_CHAMP’ Presidential Candidate’s Questionnaire, which is available online. Her answers are political, but she does not question the vaccination program. When asked about autism and vaccination she talks about environment and mercury.

[zk]

[quote=AN]I still think it was retarded to make those statements, even in 2008. Why didn’t they consult with the CDC first before commenting and giving credence to anti-vaxxers claims. That like saying those crazy birthers who claimed that Obama wasn’t American before he showed his birth certificate were OK, as long as they only made those claims before Obama show his birth certificates.[/quote]

I disagree. They really had no way of knowing that Wakefield’s “science” was really not science at all. There was a published paper in a major medical journal saying vaccines caused autism. And there were also people saying it didn’t. So, if you didn’t know that the Lancet paper wasn’t science, then, in 2008, you’d think that “the science right now is inconclusive.”

A published paper in a major medical journal is a lot more to go on than a bunch of nutjobs’ claims. ‘Course, turns out Wakefield was (is) a nutjob.

[an]

[quote=all]This is from her response to A_CHAMP’ Presidential Candidate’s Questionnaire, which is available online. Her answers are political, but she does not question the vaccination program. When asked about autism and vaccination she talks about environment and mercury.[/quote]Isn’t everything coming out of a politician’s mouth is political? So, if you give Hillary an out by saying her answers are political, but fault other politician for making other political answer, then you just come off as partisan. She said “including possible environmental causes like vaccines”. I don’t think it gets any clearer than that. Just like Ran Paul saying what he then, but followed on by saying “I’m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they’re a good thing, but I think the parents should have some input,” he added. “The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom.” If you fault Rand Paul for making the statement in the OP, then you should also fault Hillary and Obama for theirs? After all, none of them are truly anti-vaxxers like Jenny McCarthy. But it doesn’t make what they said a good thing, especially when they can be used out of context. As I said, in this day and age of cut and paste and words taken out of context, statements like these give credence to the anti-vaxxers’ claims.

[an]

[quote=zk]I disagree. They really had no way of knowing that Wakefield’s “science” was really not science at all. There was a published paper in a major medical journal saying vaccines caused autism. And there were also people saying it didn’t. So, if you didn’t know that the Lancet paper wasn’t science, then, in 2008, you’d think that “the science right now is inconclusive.”

A published paper in a major medical journal is a lot more to go on than a bunch of nutjobs’ claims. ‘Course, turns out Wakefield was (is) a nutjob.[/quote]Sorry, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I give more credence to our CDC and the vast amount of doctors who did the research and came up with the MMR vaccine than one person writing in the medical journal. It was not backed up by the medical community as a whole and the CDC, so why should a presidential candidate comment on such speculation, which turn out to be false.

[all]

[quote=AN][quote=all]This is from her response to A_CHAMP’ Presidential Candidate’s Questionnaire, which is available online. Her answers are political, but she does not question the vaccination program. When asked about autism and vaccination she talks about environment and mercury.[/quote]Isn’t everything coming out of a politician’s mouth is political? So, if you give Hillary an out by saying her answers are political, but fault other politician for making other political answer, then you just come off as partisan. She said “including possible environmental causes like vaccines”. I don’t think it gets any clearer than that. Just like Ran Paul saying what he then, but followed on by saying “I’m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they’re a good thing, but I think the parents should have some input,” he added. “The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children and it is an issue of freedom.” If you fault Rand Paul for making the statement in the OP, then you should also fault Hillary and Obama for theirs? After all, none of them are truly anti-vaxxers like Jenny McCarthy. But it doesn’t make what they said a good thing, especially when they can be used out of context. As I said, in this day and age of cut and paste and words taken out of context, statements like these give credence to the anti-vaxxers’ claims.[/quote]

Political, as in finding a way to say ‘you are a f*cking moron’ using PG language.

Did you read the questions and the answers?
She was explicitly asked Would you support a federal right for families and individuals to choose for themselves which vaccines they will use?, to which she (or more likely one of her sidekicks) replied
As President, I will support efforts to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective, including
independent reviews and large-scale studies. All Americans should have access to accurate and comprehensive information about vaccinations.

I interpret that answer as ‘no’ said in about 30 words.

Btw, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a liar and if she is the D candidate I am going to vote R regardless of who the opposing candidate is.

[Anonymous]

Yes, vote for the other candidate – the one that’s not a liar.

[Anonymous]

[quote=zk]There was a published paper in a major medical journal saying vaccines caused autism.[/quote]

The Wakefield paper never even said vaccines caused autism. It only made the claim of a correlation, and even his manufactured data was not very compelling.

He then used the paper as a foundation for a series of unsubstantiated claims about the MMR vaccine, which eventually led to paranoia about vaccines in general.

Here’s the tragic progress of this phenomenon:

http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html

[poorgradstudent]

Rand Paul’s second comment is truly idiotic. The first comment at least presents itself as more of a moral opinion. I disagree with that opinion, but at least it presents itself as an opinion.

Personal liberty vs. Common good is a debate worth having when it comes to vaccines. I fall pretty heavily on the common good side. There are a lot of personal liberties we give up for the common good, some more frustrating than others.

Clearly Rand Paul is pandering to anti-science fools rather than sticking to the less onorous personal liberty approach.

[all]

[quote=harvey]Yes, vote for the other candidate – the one that’s not a liar.[/quote]

I’ll vote for the one that did not have to dodge sniper bullets 20 years ago.

[an]

[quote=all]
She was explicitly asked Would you support a federal right for families and individuals to choose for themselves which vaccines they will use?, to which she (or more likely one of her sidekicks) replied
As President, I will support efforts to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective, including
independent reviews and large-scale studies. All Americans should have access to accurate and comprehensive information about vaccinations.

I interpret that answer as ‘no’ said in about 30 words.[/quote]I interpret that as, I’m not going to take a position. I’ll pander to those who will donate to my campaign the most. Since the Hollywood crowd are big anti-vaxxer and are big D supporter, I’m sure she didn’t want to upset them and flat out say “no”.

This doesn’t mean R candidates don’t do the same. They definitely do, just to a different crowd. Which is why I’d say most do political talk/answer and most pander. At the presidential level, I would go as far as saying all.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

Clearly Rand Paul is pandering to anti-science fools rather than sticking to the less onorous personal liberty approach.[/quote]

Therein lies the difference. It’s not the same as AN said. There’s a difference in the quality of the approach and quality of the message.

[livinincali]

[quote=AN]
Which is why I’d say most do political talk/answer and most pander. At the presidential level, I would go as far as saying all.[/quote]

This is one of the reasons vaccination conspiracy theories exist. Our government has lost the trust of the citizens and it’s credibility by being caught in telling so many lies. Even if you’re completely enamored with your political party and believe their lies, you still think the other party lies about everything.

[Author]

Posts