No, its not. Its reality. Telling me that the concept of vaccination is scientifically valid does not invalidate the danger of allowing governments to stick whatever they want in our arms, without a choice in the matter. And yes, many vaccines are unnecessary but are pushed by pharmaceutical companies in the pursuit of profits. This has been well documented.
Why would this not be the case? Its simple logic. You think everyone in the Medical Industrial Complex is caring and wants to help everyone? Talk about putting your head in the sand.
First of all, Ron Paul is not against vaccines. Neither am I. I am speaking for me on this issue and no one else. Apparently, “intelligent” people such as yourself suck up to the establishment every chance you get.
Also, why would you make the assumption that there have been no negative effects of vaccines on the health of the population? There is a rise in autism, allergies, learning disorders and numerous health problems over the last couple decades. Are you outright rejecting the notion that the increased number of immunizations is possibly contributing to that problem?
Given the health of the population at large, I would say the medical establishment is failing us. Why don’t you quit sucking up to them for a minute and think about this issues objectively?
Um, yeah, that is a fair point. I concede that. I guess it is my stubbornness that makes me want to respond to each and every reply. However, I will be caught up soon, and then we can respond to current posts rather than old ones.
But yes, this certainly isn’t a normal format for debate. I understand that. If someone posts a comment and expects me to respond to it immediately, they will get frustrated. I think the cumulative number of pages and posts will be valuable to people on this board to put this information out there.
I did answer this question. The answer is no, I do not have a full degree in economics. I took many classes in college and read a ton of books on my own. Most colleges are putting Keynesian nonsense in the students head and I can attest that I learned far more reading von Mises and following Ron Paul than I ever did in college.
We shouldn’t think that college degrees are the only indicator of intellectual achievement. In some cases they miseducate people. In many cases a person can become more educated on a subject out of the classroom than in it.
Economics is a perfect example of this. I have experience both in the classroom and learning on my own. The correct predictions of the Austrian economists in predicting the crash of 2008 convinced me that this school of thought is correct.
I doubt that it has been well-documented, but the response to those limited cases where it occurred is to tighten the controls on how vaccines are administered, not to condemn the next generation of children to polio and pertussis because Jenny McCarthy and other kooks make a prettier case on fluff TV shows than actual researchers did.
I have no trouble believing that a pharmaceutical company might push for the government to mandate one of their products. That does not mean that they have actually been successful to any great extent.
If Paul opposes mandatory vaccination for diseases such as polio and pertussis, he is every bit the crank that he has been described and he is effectively against vaccines, regardless how he softpedals his attacks.
If your first response to every such challenge to your baseless assertions is to employ the line that your opponents are just “sucking up” to the Establishment or following the estblished fairy tale like sheep, then the appropriate response to you is that your line of defense is the same one employed by every crank and Conspiracy Theorist in history. If you do not want those comparisons lodged against you, then back off on those personal dismissals.
Given that every alledged link between such trauma and vaccines has been disproved, (often including evidence that the original link was a lie), why would you continue to hold such a belief when there are known reasons for the rise of such phenomena that do not rely on vaccination CTs?
The meaning of that quote was, in my experience, much of the modern left holds a view that all wealth must be created at the expense of someone else. There is a degree of envy the endeavors to take away from the rich who make more money “than they need”. I am saying that this is childish. If people make money honestly, they deserve the money they earn because they have provided that level of value to others.
I’m not asking for anyone to bow down to my superior intellect. That is not needed. I am merely proud of my intellectual achievements and feel confident in my views. You can take my positions any way you want.
Come on. You know very well they don’t call themselves Tea baggers. The first rallies were protests which were based on the imagery of the Boston Tea Party. The events themselves were called Tea Parties. The media then started calling the participants “Tea Partiers”. Then opponents started calling them “Tea Baggers” as a derogatory sexual slang for the group.
That is the truth. The events themselves are Tea Parties. The participants are simply Americans.
No, I don’t. And no, those jobs are not gone because they are unsafe. They are gone because they are worth less than the minimum wage. Don’t you see? A very low level job is eliminated when the minimum wage is raised. It destroys jobs and people are laid off. What about ushers at a movie theater? Of employees to pump gas for people at gas stations? Extremely low skilled jobs such as these are gone because the cost of providing them is worth more than the value they provide to the employer.
These are stepping stone jobs, for teenagers, immigrants or other people just starting out. It would provide job experience, yet these jobs are eliminated through minimum wage laws.
So, most of these government regulations hurt the very people they are designed to help.
Is your evading the main problem deliberate, or just an unintentional oversight? As has been stated here and your other threads, the main problem is the original posting of your many-point/many-page OPs. This is what causes the difficulty in the first place, and what makes a coherent conversation with you next to impossible.
Does anyone else get the impression that when jrodefeld was a kid, and was assigned a book report on Tom Sawyer, that he turned in a copy of the book with a note that said “The attached book will tell you everything you need to know about Tom Sawyer”?
And that his term papers were a title page followed by the bibliography?
Seriousy, jrodefeld, if you can’t address the simple counterpoints to your gold standard ideas without linking to something else, why should I take you seriously? Notice that the posters countering your points have done so in their own words, without having to resort to links or youtube videos. Why do you think that is?
So you were wrong when you said people vote for their own self interest, at the expense of the liberty of others; is that your admission now?
Everything the Obama Administration has proposed is consistent with a Constitutional Republic. Anyone who disagrees may avail themselves of the constitutionally mandated remedies, and file a federal lawsuit. The Supreme Court, as authorized under ther Constitution, is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress.
You, on the other hand, have no Consitutional authority to decide what is consistent with a constitutional republic, nor do you have any better insight into the intent of the Founders than the Supreme Court. If you somehow decide that the democratic process as codified in the Constitution is tyranny, you may engage in whatever civil disobedience floats your boat. But, short of taking up arms, it will not change the political system, because we are abiding by the process provided in the Constitution, and you are not.
The people through the Constitution. And, this may drive the Atheists crazy, but the truth is the founders harped on God given rights so much because they DIDN’T trust the people. They did believe the document was divinely inspired. They wanted liberty for all people and so they endeavored to constrain government to the defense of liberty through expressly delegated functions. They didn’t want the people to have too much say in the government. Thats why they made the process of amended the Constitution long and arduous.
Democracy leads to despotism eventually. Therefore the best government is one which is limited and the people are prevented from having much say in the functions of the government, apart from electing the representatives to safeguard that limited, defined government. It was the only way to protect liberty for a long period of time.
Yes, but if you say that that allows the government to spend that money on ANYTHING, you are dead wrong. The Constitution allows the collection of revenue through taxes to fund the expressly limited functions delegated in the Constitution.
They called themselves teabaggers originally. When they found out the sexual connotation they ran fast and hard from it. But tea bagger was their original terminology, not a made up term by critics. Got it?
Any law that exceeded the functions delegated by the Constitutional would be unconstitutional, would it not? So why haven’t all these unconstitutional laws been challenged in federal court, and overturned by the Supreme Court?
The fact is, whenever the current laws have been challenged, the Supreme Court (or a lesser court), authorized by the Constitution, have confirmed the laws under the Constitution. The system works!
Your opinion is just that; a minority opinion, that is contrary to the Constitution, and really not worthy of consideration.
That is meaningless. The Constitution does not make the law; the Congress makes the law, and the people elect their representatives. All under the authority of the Constitution. Representative democracy is enshrined in the Constitution, and mere gainsaying that fact will not change it. We are a Democracy. We are a Republic. Just the way the Founders intended.
Okay, looking at that list, I will point out the things that HAVE come true:
**Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.
Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, with exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.
The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority
Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.
The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.
Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.
This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened.
During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.
The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.
Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.
**
These all sound very accurate to me. The rest could easily happen. The gist of what he said is very accurate.
We wouldn’t have those kinds of economies. We could enjoy all the benefits of modern economic life without the inflation, with increased stability and financial security.
What is to prevent it? Good intentions? Feudalism is the ultimate culmination of the free market you envision. Those who do not own property become the economic slaves of those who do. Submit to your liegelord, or starve. Having done away with all the regulations that limit ‘consensual’ agreements, there can be no other outcome. Desperate, starving people will submit to slavery, and property owners will perpetuate the system that keeps the poor powerless, because it is in their economic interest.
Of course, eventually, the poor rise up with the power of sheer numbers, drag the property owners into the streets and burn tires around their necks. That is how your vision of liberty always ends.