Well that expertise in economics isn’t from a degree as you said. From what source do you claim this expertise?
There isn’t (sic) valid scientific argument and serious medical doctors who oppose vaccination.
Yes, increases in the money supple IS inflation and leads to higher prices. That is just the fact, whether or not you admit it. How can you not understand that if there is more of something its value decreases? That should be obvious. More money means each dollar is worth less, therefore goods and services cost more.
I honestly have no idea how a rational thinking person could dispute that.
How is that a conspiracy theory? If creation of new money causes higher prices, but there is a delay of months or even a year, then the person who has access to that money first has a significant advantage. They can spend that money into the economy BEFORE prices rise.
By the way, there IS a Trilateral Commission. It exists. Now, that is not to say that any conspiracy theory about the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderburg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations is true, but you shouldn’t dispute their existence.
I’ll answer this point (which is completely wrong) by linking to a critical breakdown of the definition and causes of Malinvestment: Malinvestment: A Primer –
Yes Malinvestment is an issue of incomplete information. The Federal Reserve’s printing of money and setting of interest rates distorts the market, sends the wrong signals to investers, producing Malinvestment and the artificial boom that necessitates the inevitable bust whereby this malinvestment and bad debt must be liquidated.
I find it humorous how you casually throw around the term “the experts”. Any time government or the media is pushing something, we are told “all economists say”, “all scientists believe”, or “all serious thinker say” such and such. This is a simple minded approach to thinking about issues that puts away your critical faculties and renders you helpless to those who seek to mold and control you.
Not all economists support the bailout and stimulus packages, despite what is repeated endlessly on the news. There were many who predicted failure of these tired Keynesian policies. Similarly, there are many doctors who are “experts” who dispute this phony “consensus” peddled by the media. You simply have a close mind to looking at issues more carefully.
This is a shockingly un-libertarian position, and one I am surprised to hear from you. This is nothing more than personal expediency on your part. Your brand of libertarianism would impose considerable harm on others in the vague hope that at some time in the future, things woiuld be better. But somehow, home schooling your kids is too high a price to pay for exercising your freedom to decline vaccinations. You have lost all credibility in this debate, because you are not motivated by a belief in the superiority of libertarianism, but by personal convenience.
Sure, next time I post here it will be shorter and easier to digest. But don’t pretend that any of you have really “debunked” my points. This is not just me being stubborn. Some of you have given well thought out criticisms of certain parts of my post. But most were simply a misunderstanding of what I wrote, an issues of having the wrong definitions of words or phrases. And in all cases, I responded with an articulate explanation of what I really meant and where the poster went wrong. I don’t think any of you “stumped” me.
Look, I understand the frustration with me posting lots of links and excerpts that you don’t want to take the time to read. Thats fine. I really hope that some of you do read some of this stuff on your own time. You may not be convinced, but you will broaden your horizons and gain a greater appreciation for economics and and liberty.
Its up to you of course.
Here’s a clue for you. Most doctors, while very busy keeping up with the explosion of knowledge in treating their patients, are not experts in running or analyzing studies. My wife had a job analyzing studies for a major drug company, and she had to tell the doctors reporting that it was not all right to throw out the data that didn’t look good. Plus, I’d much rather have experts setting medical policy than politicians who are swayed by scare stories.
Give me some cites about schools prescribing drugs for students. Do you think kids should be allowed to disrupt the education of everyone else? Do you think kids should be allowed to spread disease to everyone else.
Please give us specific examples of unnecessary vaccines. And it is very clear that if enough people refuse vaccines they can endanger those around them.
What does this have to do with a centrally managed system? Schools may require vaccination, but the vaccination is usually done by family doctors. (Though I did take polio vaccine sugarcubes in elementary school, but the vaccine had just been introduced and they wanted it spread as quickly as possible.) The was 50 years ago, so I suppose there were no ill effects.
You are welcome to provide a cite to any study done by legitimate scientists proving or demonstrating risk.
Are you shitting me? This guy is a homeopath, the very definition of ignorant quack. Do you have any idea of why homeopathy is nonsense? You might as well cite a flat-earther about a geography issue.
Anyone citing a homeopath about a medical issue had better not talk about ignorance.
When I was a kid we lost a lot of school time due to diseases now prevented. Plus there were cases of adults who had never gotten the diseases getting very sick. My kids were a lot healthier than I was because they got vaccinated.
Study after study refutes the dangers of vaccination being greater than the dangers of the diseases they prevent. Some doctors are idiots (example: Ron Paul) and a few doctors believing any kind of crap is no substitute for valid studies. But I suppose people who cite homeopaths wouldn’t know that.
Well the reason that you cannot understand it is because you artificially presume the Volume of Circulation and the Quantity of Transactions to be constants. Without any justification for so doing.
Everyone accepts MV=PT. It’s impossible to argue that. But to take a blind leap as you do do and assume that all chances in M will be mirrored in P is just, frankly, ridiculous.
The velocity of circulation of money does vary as the money supply varies. It can be empirically shown. The number of transactions varies as the money supply varies. It can be empirically shown. Of course, Friedman’s first law comes into play here - if the facts do not conform with the theory, the facts must be disposed of.
Okay, if I am wrong then I apologize for failing to verify that quote before posting it. Apparently a lot of other people were mislead as well. The point is if I look for a quote to describe the views of the founders, and I find several that sound exactly like what they have said elsewhere and is consistent with their other writings, it hardly disputes my larger point on the matter. So, a quote I posted was misattributed, yet still is consistent with the views of the founders. If you nitpick these kinds of things, it implies you have no real rebuttal to my larger argument. So you focus on a typo, a mis-attributed quote or a simple case where I misspoke.
Of course I know that. The Constitution, as envisioned by the Founders is no longer in effect either. The point was to give credence to the intent of the Constitution by the founders. And the truth is that the Founders wanted extremely limited central government compared to today. The point is, there has been a massive amount of writings by the founders giving us a very clear view about what they believed about the role of government and human liberty. And they were on my side on most issues, That is not debatable.
Your views are in direct contradiction of the beliefs and warnings of the founding fathers. You appear to be okay with that, but you should clearly acknowledge it and don’t pretend otherwise.
I want to tackle this phrase in particular: If they had observed the human misery caused by the unfettered free markets in the 19th century, if they had witnessed the damage caused by the robber barons, if they had seen the enormous prosperity that emerged only after we abandoned the gold standard and created the Federal Reserve, they most likely would have changed their minds.
Now, you weren’t alive in the 19th century. Nobody living today was. All you know about live during those times has been fed to you by authorities with an agenda to justify government intervention into the marketplace. Is this not so? How much effort has there been expended on your part to learn about the industrial revolution, beyond your high school history textbook?
We were a very young nation, with a small population and only the principles of liberty and the hopes and dreams brought about through independence from a Tyrant. Prior to the adoption of capitalism and industrialization the conditions for most people were deplorable. Forgive me for using a quote once again, but the brilliant economist Ludwig von Mises addresses this point quite eloquently:
[ Post taken in its entirety from a copyrighted website alledging to be an analysis byu von Mises of the Industrial Revolution deleted.
No link provided since jrodfeld could not be bothered to provide it. Ed. tomndebb ]
In other words the market economy and industrialization, for the first time in history, allowed for the development of a middle class and improved the lives of the workers. Throughout history societies have been broken into classes. The poor are destitute and without any valuables. The rich have luxuries based upon the labor of the poor. This has been the standard throughout history. Yet, through the adoption of market economics and industrialization the poor were able to have access to luxuries that only a few decades earlier were only available to the wealthy. This system of market economics allowed the upward mobility that characterizes The American Dream. This was unique in all of history. The wealthy instead of exploiting the poor, were forced to satisfy the masses of the people who constituted the “consumer”. Through the scale of industrialization that drove down the price of goods and services, the standard of living was able to go up drastically for many people. Conditions were still poor, at least compared to today, but they were light years ahead of where they were prior to the Industrial Revolution.
We are where we are today not as a result of government policies, but as a result of globalization and increased population, thus creating a larger workforce.
The fallacy you make is assuming that because human technological progress marches on, that government economic policies are responsible when our standard of living goes up. This is ridiculous. In viewing the conditions of the late 19th century, you don’t compare it to now and think that if we adopted similar policies we would immediately have the same type of wealth and living conditions they had. That is the leap you make. The key is the progress and rate of growth and creation of wealth they experiences compared to before industrialization. That is the key.
As far as the constitution is concerned, if it is outdated, as you seem to claim, then answer me this question:
Instead of simply ignoring the Constitution, why didn’t we amend it to change with the times? Wouldn’t this keep the limitations on government that the founders set up yet still allow the government to slowly evolve over time?
I await your answer.
Wrong. Please review the definition of “inflation”, as cited 6 times below:
Cite 1:[
](Inflation - Econlib)
Cite 2:[
](Inflation Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)
Cite 3:[
](Inflation - Wikipedia)
Cite 4:[
](http://conservapedia.com/Inflation)
Cite 5:[
](http://www.investorwords.com/2452/inflation.html)
Cite 6:[
](Inflation: What It Is, How It Can Be Controlled, and Extreme Examples)
How is it still consistent with the views of the founders, when, judging by the accuracy of your ‘quotes’ we still don’t know what their views are? I posted an incontestable quote that makes it pretty clear Franklin was somewhat of a socialist, and you hand wave it away with vague claims of quotes that contradict that, but are unable to cite any that are verifiable. Once again, your credibility is taking it in the shorts.
But your argument is that the Founders supported libertarian ideals, yet all your quotes turn out to be fabricated by libertarian zealots. This is hardly trivial nit-picking; your whole claim about the Founders is suspect.
jrodefeld, since you simply cannot refrain from violating the SDMB rules regarding Fair Use citations of copyrighted works, I am Warning you that you are on very thin ice and, to make sure you take the time to read our rules, (cited above), I am giving you a couple of days off from the board.
When you come back, pay attention and behave yourself.
[ /Moderating ]
Sorry that the whole violation of rules thing has interrupted our discussion but, assuming you’ll be back, I’ll offer a couple of comments.
Although I thought your main screed was filled with revisionist and rejectionist history, it seemed that your anti-vax position was merely a minor diversion, an aside into which you had put little thought. Now though you demonstrate that you are firmly entrenched in the camp of woo. Come on, a shadow cabal (“a Medical Industrial Complex”) riding roughshod over doctors and governments alike, forcing endless and harmful inoculations? Cue the Twilight Zone music.
And please note that there is no more “valid scientific argument” against vaccination than there is against evolution. The poster child of anti-vax hysteria, the belief that vaccination causes autism, has now been scientifically and thoroughly debunked. Perhaps you should read something outside of your circular and self-reinforcing supposed authorities for a change. The anti-vax arguments are nonsense.
More woo. All of recorded history available from every diverse source has been specifically corrupted and “fed to you by authorities with an agenda”. All of recorded history except those parts sequestered by the brilliant Austrians and revealed to acolytes such as yourself. Uh huh. But you go on…
A very young nation, with a small population and only the principles of liberty and the hopes and dreams brought about through independence from a Tyrant. Sniffle. Yeah, that and almost unlimited land and natural resources. And insulation by two great big oceans from any country that might have wanted to gain those resources for itself. Poor, poor us. Credit the Austrians with dragging us, kicking and screaming, back from the edge of that abyss! Phwew!
Again the rising tide argument, this time with the added nonsense of crediting someone or something (presumably those Austrians or pre-Austrians) with “adoption of capitalism and industrialization” as if this was a deliberate choice. But no, jrodefeld, the Industrial Revolution was driven by advances in engineering and technology (steam power among them) and not by purposeful macroeconomic actions of an elite international corps of industrialists. The global Industrial Revolution (it wasn’t just American, you know) did indeed eventually float a lot of boats, but there was a huge toll of human misery and death associated with the societal upheaval it entailed. That toll was paid, not by the capitalists and industrialists, but by everyone else. Please note that, axiomatically, “the poor” do not actually “have access to luxuries [once] only available to the wealthy”. You didn’t mean stale bread and a leaky roof, did you?
And yet you come back once more to that specially revealed history wherein the sainted wealthy industrialists, acting on altruistic Austrian impulses by taking from their own pockets and from the mouths of their own babies, went out of their way to “satisfy the masses of the people” rather than working them literally to death in sweatshops and child labor factories. Yup, the poor were light years ahead. Starving to death in a squalid and disease-ridden shanty town adjacent to an industrializing city was ever so much better than starving as a sharecropper in the countryside. They should have been grateful, but all they did was cry out for government interference in the free market, wanting things like limited work hours, limited work days, safe(r) working conditions, and salaries that would allow them to actually feed, clothe and house their families. Damn Keynesian ingrates!
Perhaps I’m wrong, but the undercurrent in your entire thesis strikes me as that of an enthusiastic acolyte. Your unabashed adoration of your “brilliant” heroes, your seeming inability to stop yourself from quoting them at great length rather than offer your own arguments, even your outright rejection (“There is no debate!”) of every single demonstrated fact that contradicts your recitation, all have the feeling of religious fervor. The words of your heroes are treated as dogma, to be unquestioningly followed, even when they are glaringly, irrefutably, ridiculously (e.g., Ron Paul’s predictions) wrong!
I hope you will take time during your sabbatical to read some of the actual debate points offered by other posters upthread. I’m not suggesting you become a Keynesian sycophant, but really, you need to branch out more. Your present efforts ring sadly of a pseudo-religious echo chamber, and suffer from a lengthy list of demonstrable errors. I think you can do better than that.
Oh, and one more piece of unasked-for advice – stay far, far away from the woo. Often, insinuation of guilt by association is unwarranted and unjust. But sometimes when you lie down with dogs you do indeed get fleas. Just sayin’.
[quote=“ITR_champion, post:552, topic:550784”]
I don’t see how we can have an honest debate with jrodefeld when he refuses to answer where/when his mystical %15+ black membership tea party rally was, and the mods have forbidden us from asking him for more details.
I at first thought he was playing fair, and sounded like a reasonable person who was REALLY trying to discuss issues that he has obviously read about, and just came to the IMO, wrong conclusions.
Then when I saw he was making stuff up about the black tea party rally participants, I realized he was nothing special.
jrodefeld, even by your standards, asking me to review your past history of racist statements and links is not a very smart idea. But since you asked for it, I’m going to do it.
Your record of promoting anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and Hitler-worship.
In post 85 of this thread you linked to a video which says:
“The same World Order that started World War One and World War Two, the same World Order that stole billions of dollars from African nations and hid it in Geneva banks, the same World Order that manufactured the Holocaust and managed to frame the German people for terrible deeds.” So that’s holocaust denial and all kinds of other conspiracy theory craziness in one post.
In that same post you linked to NWOObserver.wordpress.com, a blog which claims that Jews are joining forces with Satanists to control the world. [See here.](” Pawns in the Game: A Satanic conspiracy to control the world | NWO Observer)
Also in post 475 of this thread current you linked to an article by John Denson which is pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi, as part of its argument against President Roosevelt.
And at the start of this current thread, you ordered us to get our news from rense.com. Scores of articles on that site warn about Jewish plots to control the financial system and all the other usual anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Among the articles currently up:
“The Jewish Role in Slavery”, “Crazed Israelis Threaten Total War”, and “Massive Israeli Manipulation of US Media”.
Your record of declaring black people inferior.
In Post 475 of this thread you linked to an article in The New American, side-by-side with ads from the John Bircher Society and ads for a medal of “Jefferson Davis, Champion of the Confederacy”. That magazine is a regular fount of racist garbage; pick up an issue in your local library if you don’t believe me. As I write this, the top story on their website is an endorsement of the birthers.
At the start of this thread you ordered us to follow Tom Woods, and in post 482 of this thread you linked to a video presentation by him. Woods is a leading American racist. Among other things, he has claimed that no black people fought for America in the American Revolution and that slavery didn’t exist at the time of the founders. See this review of one of his books: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. .
At the start of this thread, you ordered your readers to visit and trust rense.com. That website endorses David Duke for President. If you don’t believe me, go see for yourself. (It’s between the add for five pounds of pot and the link entitled “Freemasons control local economies.”)
In that same post, you linked to World Net Daily, which has a long history of using racist slurs and other unwanted stuff. See this link for details:
Your record of attacking Mexicans and Hispanics.
You also ordered us to visit breakthematrix.com, another racist website. Their leading article right now is a claim that Barack Obama and Mexican immigrants are conspiring with the UN against America.
You’ve linked to the website of the magazine Human Events (in the same post as you linked to the Holocaust denial video). Human Events is famous for things such as posting the “Illegal Alien Christmas Song”, which you can find using Google if you absolutely have to see it.
In this thread you made scores of posts claiming that the NAFTA Superhighway, the Amero, and the North American Union are real. In reality all three are imaginary are right-wingers use them to drum up hatred of Hispanics.
In that same thread you linked to a video in which Lou Dobbs says: “Mexicans are at war against America” and are “trying to destroy America”.
So there you have it. A dozen clear examples of you going out of your way to make clear that you hate Jews, blacks, or Hispanics. I’m sure everyone in this thread will agree with me when I say that the ones I’ve listed are only a small sample of the ones you’ve posted. In total, you’ve posted scores of such links that I can remember and doubtlessly many more that I missed. Thus I stand by my claim that roughly half you links go to racist bilge. Probably more than half, actually.
So let’s go over the defenses that you’ve offered.
Defense # 1: You say that you’ve never linked to anything racist. I’ve given a dozen examples of you doing so. So much for that defense.
Defense #2: You admit that you’ve linked to racist things but you say it was an accident, and you intended to link to something else. So half of your links are accidents, and it’s just by coincidence that all of those accidents involve linking to white supremacists? Not bloody likely.
So, for lack of any alternative, it seems safe to conclude that your real goal is posting on our board is to promote the hatred of Jews, black, and Hispanics. (Of course I could also mention the various times when you promoted the theory that women and homosexuals are trying to neuter men by dumping chemicals in the drinking water, that the BP oil spill was a government conspiracy, and so forth.)
You’re the one who’s trying to promote Austrian School economists by linking to pages run by white supremacists. You tell me.
Ten dollars says that you chicken out and refuse to respond to this post.
The Conspiracy rides again. Make up your mind, fella - is it “many” doctors or “most” doctors who peddle antivax tripe?
(whack) The Cluestick says: it’s a tiny minority of quacks and cranks that reject vaccination. Heavily represented amongst these “doctors” are chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, a smattering of PhDs who are speaking outside their areas of expertise and a few M.D.s who fancy themselves as Brave Mavericks persecuted by The Man, and who are fringe players lacking respect in their profession. There’s at least one recent study showing, for example, that better than 90% of pediatricians report following the full recommended vaccine schedule in their own children. And of the remainder, you’d be hard-pressed to find more than a handful who avoid vaccines entirely.
Vaccines are not “drugs”. Realizing that you are not a doctor, how can you baldly say that “most” vaccines are unnecessary? I invite you to consider pertussis (currently hitting California), Hib meningitis, polio, measles and rubella (for starters) and provide your evidence that catching these vaccine-preventable diseases is fine and dandy.
By this impeccable logic, we should steer way clear of Ron Paul and all his Libertarian buddies. Who’s to say that otherwise, in fifteen to twenty years there won’t be total global anarchy and starvation?
jrodefeld goes on to cite “valid” links such as vaccinetruth.org, naturalnews.com, mercola.com (quackery-laden sites all) and (pause for hilarity to ensue) whale.to.
While rense.com is an automatic fail, citing whale.to on any health-related matter (or to back up any sort of claim) is a nuclear fail. The whackjobs on the Whale make the rense.com folks look almost half-sane.
About the only loony-bin site you’ve omitted is Curezone. And I have faith that you’ll link to it sooner or later.
Can you at least keep the delusional antivax paranoia up to date? Mercury-based preservative (thimerosal) has been gone from virtually all vaccines since at least 2002 (it’s still employed in multi-use influenza vaccine vials, but a thimerosal-free alternative exists). It was removed for precautionary reasons but no negative health effects have ever been demonstrated. The quote “as if there is such a thing as a “safe” amount of a toxic poison” is absolute nonsense - there are minute amounts of all kinds of “toxic poisons” in everybody’s system. The dose makes the poison, a concept you need to familiarize yourself with.
Speaking of doses, we have been overdosed with links to nutbags. Hint: if you can’t find respectable sources to support your ideas, maybe they contain a wee flaw here and there.
Sorry, but the issue of racism within the Tea Party is not central to this discussion. There was no harm in raising it, but if one party declines, (through declaration or silence), to discuss it, it is not so central to the theme of the thread that there is a point to allowing the thread to be hijacked.
If you do not believe the debate can be “honest” without that information, then you are free to not participate in the debate. However, unless jrodefeld raises the issue, again, it is dead in this thread and you will drop it.
CannyDan, ITR champion, Jackmannii, and any other poster to this thread:
the issues of woo, libertarian views of universal vaccination, and racism are really not pertinent to this thread. (I agree that giving voice to some of those beliefs casts a particular light on the quality of the reasoning behind other assertions by a poster, but they are really off topic to the issue of the economy and President Obama that is the ostensible purpose of this thread.)
I would strongly suggest that we drop such hijacks, (however tempting some may find them), so that the thread is not immediately derailed if and when the OP returns.
Anyone may open a new thread to discuss those issues or open a different thread in The BBQ Pit to express displeasure with the views put forth, but do not pursue those lines of discussion in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, fine. I have no problem if some of you don’t want to read the links and tackle this complex subject. Like I said earlier, I will later elaborate with specific points in individual threads that are more condensed and easier to debate.
I just want to get this information out there for your benefit. You don’t have to reply, but following up on what is posted, you should take the time to read the literature and learn about the philosophy of liberty.
You may not agree, but you will broaden your views and develop a more nuanced view of the world.
First of all, I do challenge my own thinking. I do this continually. As to whether I have made mistakes on this thread, you may be right. I have made typos and posted a couple of links by accident. Other than that I don’t think I have made any mistakes which have in any way invalidated my argument. I think you are the one who is mistaken.
By the way, gold value fluctuates in relation to various fiat currencies. The reason to tie a currency to gold is to define the value of money in terms of an asset of fixed quantity. Therefore, the currency will maintain its value over time. It will limit inflation and restrict government growth. That is the point. Yet you and others confuse the issue by stating how gold price in fiat dollars has fluctuated! That is completely irrelevant and in no way invalidates the notion of tying a currency to a tangible asset to restrain the government and the banking industry from corruption and fiscal mismanagement.
The idea is this:
We the people own the money, which is defined in terms of gold by the Constitution. The government works FOR US by our consent. For purposes of convenience we allow the government to print certificates to facilitate easier transactions. THE PEOPLE’S gold is held in Fort Knox. If we lose trust in our government we can exchange our certificates for the gold, thus holding the government accountable.
This is what the founders advocated. They saw this as critical for the survival of liberty in America. The notion that the people would be forced to accept fiat money printed in secret by a private bank that continually devalues the money would seem crazy to our founders and early presidents.
Why on earth would this seem not sensible to you? As to the value of gold, there has never been a time in history where gold has not had tremendous value in a society. Yet, fiat currencies are destroyed in a few decades sometimes. No fiat currency has ever lasted more than a century.
I don’t understand why you don’t get this.
This is a completely unimportant point. This is more opinion than fact. In my experience, many liberals are more engaged in class warfare rhetoric in the idea that all wealthy (or many) made their money exploiting the poor. Therefore we need to tax them much more as a sort of “punishment” to make things right. This is very socialistic line of thinking. There are some who make money exploiting people for sure. In a free market, people make money giving value to other people. Therefore the only way to get wealthy is to provide superior goods or services, creating jobs, and raising everyones standard of living.
We should eliminate corporate welfare, prosecute fraud and prevent government getting in bed with corporations and eliminate the practice of regulatory capture. But we should not think that we should levy an extreme tax rate on business simply because they make more money.
We should have a small government where we don’t need to tax anybody very much.
The mechanisms of the marketplace are rather complex, especially considering the amount of unwise intervention and manipulation taking place by the federal reserve. Here is the issue:
Bond markets have, since 1971, been very poor predictors of inflation. In the 1970s the bond market underestimated inflation, and the bond yields were very strong in the 80s and 90s when they overestimated inflation. It is very hard to predict future price increases when the interest rate is set by central planners.
You seem to have been suckered into believing government statistics like the CPI to measure inflation. The reason central planning of the economy doesn’t work is because the intervention creates false signals in the market that don’t correspond to reality. You should not be reassured that ads you may have seen about the rate of bonds indicate that we will not see rising prices.
There was a reason that Austrian economists were able to correctly predict the crash of 08 when so few Keynesians did. It is because of things like this.
Greenspan, Bernanke, Goolsby, Geithner, Summers and the rest of the gang have failed in everything they have said and done regarding the economy. I suggest you don’t listen to another word any of these men say.
And read up on Austrian economics.
You know, this is not my main point of contention here. I have been exposed to a multitude of holistic doctors and alternative medicine and nutritional research that you may not have been exposed to. And I have never been vaccinated. I don’t feel I am a threat to anyone and I rarely get sick. Growing up, I was far healthier than other kids who did get vaccinated. I believe that modern, conventional medicine has many flaws to it that most don’t consider. There are vaccines that can and should be administered based on the situation. But consider this:
Most vaccines contain all of these substances:
**Sodium chloride
Sodium Hydroxide (also known as lye, caustic soda, soda lye.) Is corrosive and is an Eye, skin and respiratory irritant. Can burn eyes, skin and internal organs. Can cause lung and tissue damage, blindness and can be fatal if swallowed. Found in oven cleaners, tub and tile cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners and drain openers.
Formaldehyde: A neurotoxin and carcinogen (effects the nervous system and known to cause cancer.) May cause insomnia, coughing, headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, and skin rashes. Commonly known to embalm corpses. It has been said that there is no safe level of formaldehyde to be ingested into the body.
Hydrochloric acid: CAN DISTROY TISSUE UPON DIRECT CONTACT! Found in aluminum cleaners and rust removers.
Aluminum: toxic, cancerous.
Thimerosal: mercury derivative (contain mercury.) Extremely dangerous preservative. Made from a combination of Ethylene Glycol (AKA antifreeze!!!) and ethanol, thiosalicylic acid, sodium hydroxide and ethyl mercuric chloride. These chemicals are nerotoxic, dangerous, fatal and easily cause brain and liver damages. causes cancer.
Phosphates: suffocates all forms of aquatic life. Found in laundry and dishwasher detergent and cleaners.**
We are injecting children with dozens and dozens of shots before they are even a few years old. I was taught about holistic medicine and building up the bodies natural immunity through proper supplementation, a good diet, and exercise. From my experience this is a far superior course of action to ensure good health.
Now, many vaccines don’t have to contain Mercury and these other poisons. It is not necessary for them to do their job. There are dangerous amounts of these substances that you favor injecting into young children who are still developing.
If you want to vaccinate your son, that is fine. I HIGHLY recommend you do not get all the vaccinations. Think for yourself. Seek the opinion of an alternative and holistic doctor about the possible dangers of vaccines. Don’t be pressured into this. If there is a very low risk of a certain illness, why subject your child to a vaccine which contains all these poisons? It just doesn’t make any sense.
Actually no. I was a libertarian and supporter of Ron Paul in the 2007-2008 campaign. I knew of Austrian economics but I wasn’t as convinced as I am now. I witnessed over the past three to four years how the establishment economists and forecasters have failed us and the Austrians and independent libertarians have been right in their predictions and policy suggestions. I became completely convinced beyond a doubt around December 2008 to January 2009.
If you follow the predictions of the Mises Institute, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and Gerald Celente over the course of a couple years and compare them to the “mainstream” CNBC, Fox, CNN and establishment talking heads you will be convinced as well.