Where do YOU split with the good doctor?


thanks for the links. and no offense to you but that article was shit to support the question on the table. actually to be honest it's a shit article regardless. the evidence given was flimsy and sparse and the concluding paragraphs betray an entirely different argument than the piece initially purports to engage.

that aside if there's solid evidence to support your point, groovy. I can think of at least a couple contrary examples.

Saying "our house is back in order" is a great way to exude confidence to consumers and investors the world over. Back to business as usual.
meh. talk is cheap and investors the world over can suck it. how about the government invest domestically and give people here something real to believe in with lasting physical evidence of the investment once the deal's done.

oh wait that's never worked.

oh wait yes it has.
 


lolwat? Are you fucking kidding me? Poliomyelitis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Please show me some peer reviewed scientific evidence that vaccines don't save human lives.
My statement was too broad. Im not against all vaccines, rather the large majority.. as the pharmaceutical companies have a clear vested interest in making money by introducing as many vaccines as possible. Just look at the insane childhood vaccine schedule.. Typing on phone now, but ill link sources tmw that show its all a huge scam
 
Yes, there are useless vaccines. Its up to you as a parent/human being to decide which are the necessary ones. Claiming that vaccines against lethal highly infectious diseases is just a ploy to make some money is retarded though.

There are diseases that you dont know about because youve never experienced them yourself or seen their work on another human being. That is only the case because widespread vaccination made them almost extinct in some parts of the world. I have doctors in my family who were involved in fighting the pox. Not in some lab but on the field. Just be glad that you dont come in contact with such agents. Sitting in your comfy chair claiming that vaccination is the root of all evil reeks of a level of arrogance that is simply not tolerable.

That being said, if you take a shot against a flu that was mild to begin with, thats your problem, not mine. I didnt claim every vaccine in the world was important.


Some of you guys are such fuckwads. Youve got no problem getting poor people in debt for "not reading the terms lolz" but god forbid someone gets rich making millions of lives better. Evil vaccinations are evil because someone made money form it.
 
No, there's not significant science that indicates vaccines save human lives.

It's your business if you want to believe that 100,000s of people have been involved in an evil plot to release fake data for 100s of years, but to say that the data isn't there makes no sense at all.

George Washington had his troops vaccinated against smallpox.

Below is a cartoon by the Anti-Vaccine Society made in 1802 which shows their fears about Thomas Jefferson, who was very in favor of vaccines.

0023522-granger.jpg



oh noes, I might get the flu! or my child might get chicken pox lols.

So you're ultra-paranoid of "metal/chemicals" but diseases that have been proven to kill millions are a laughing matter? The flu kills half a million people some years.


Vaccine has nearly eliminated chickenpox deaths in children - USATODAY.com


Influenza Vaccine Can Prevent Flu Death Among Children: CDC - International Business Times
 
thanks for the links. and no offense to you but that article was shit to support the question on the table. actually to be honest it's a shit article regardless. the evidence given was flimsy and sparse and the concluding paragraphs betray an entirely different argument than the piece initially purports to engage.

that aside if there's solid evidence to support your point, groovy. I can think of at least a couple contrary examples.

I only linked to Bob's article out of respect because it's where I stumbled upon the report. I really only posted it because of the credibility (another sic) of the European Central Bank and how these "findings" go against the core of the ECB.

If you want to read some real history, check out how 'noid we were of unemployment when millions of our boys were coming home from WWII. Enter spending cuts -> economic recovery.

So we can deal in theory for a while more if you want as a brain stretching exercise, but when you look throughout history ... it's pretty obvious what has worked in the past. The incentives for some to push the debt on the people are also very obvious. Blowback is a real thing.

oh wait that's never worked.

oh wait yes it has.

So what you're touching on here is the only reason I'm still a minarchist. I think it likely would have taken the private sector much longer to organize the entire interstate system (for example). That same interstate system is currently preventing us from having flying cars. Best of intentions, unintended consequences.

Lets put things in perspective shall we?

Army corps of Engineers: Over the past 80 years, $6 billion total spent on levees up an down the Mississippi (not counting New Orleans). These levees protect 10's of millions of people from flooding. It also protects $100's of billions of in annual trade income & TRILLIONS in property.

Foreign Aggression budget: $700+ Billion for 2012 for the Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"

So while I agree with ...

how about the government invest domestically and give people here something real to believe in with lasting physical evidence of the investment once the deal's done.

... in theory. Reality is much different.

Our gov't gave us a box of chocolates for valentines day years ago ..... it buys it's whore a new house every year. I personally get very pissed that we spent more in an hour bombing Baghdad than we did 20 years ago building the fucking bridge that connects me to my family.
 
My take on abortion is that there are so many options other than abortion, the only reason it is pushed so hard is because it is the most profitable (short-term).

There aren't many excuses on how your circumstances would come to needing an abortion. None that aren't a result of someone acting in a selfish and self-centered way.

I'll go as far as saying, even in the case of rape, abortion isn't necessary. At least not what I would count as an abortion. Taking an emergency contraceptive a few days after in my opinion is not an abortion. I'm going to cheat and bend the rules and say that we should determine when life begins the same way we determine when life ends. The heartbeat. A fetus does not have a heartbeat until 5-6 weeks.

The only way for a rape victim to realize she is pregnant at that point would be assuming she never went to the hospital and never filed a police report. In my opinion, this women is now just as guilty as the rapist because she is putting her personal emotions ahead of what she should feel obligated to do.

When that rapist finds another victim, the fact that the previous victim did nothing to prevent it from happening, even though she was more able to do so than anyone else, makes her accountable by enabling the rapist to harm someone else. (This ONLY applies when she can identify the rapist).

If you knew a murder or rape was going to take place, and authorities could prove that you knew, and did nothing, wouldn't you be facing charges too? It can be assumed that if someone is capable of committing a violent act against another person, there is little doubt that another violent act is inevitable if this person doesn't suffer a consequence for their actions.

Now our victim waits 9 or 12 weeks before she finally decides to tell anyone she was raped and is now pregnant. She's only coming forward because she doesn't want the baby. Since that baby has a heartbeat, her inaction now will result not just in another potential rape victim, but now results in a death (the stop of a heartbeat) as well.

That's my long winded stance on the whole issue, however, should government be involved? No.

Abortions are the big money maker for clinics and planned parenthood, lets keep it that way, but lets cut government funding to any clinic 100% if they offer abortion services. (Or even better, cut government funding period).

This will cause abortions to become prohibitively more expensive. Abortions aren't exactly the first line of defense when it comes to birth control for responsible people anyway. If abortions aren't the *easy* option anymore, people will find and use whatever is easier.

The other thing is, you can ban abortions, but it won't stop them. As long as its a cheaper/easier alternative to other birth control methods, someone will provide that service. Legal or not.

One more thing. I don't know if any of you have seen how late-term abortions are performed, it's pretty horrific. The reason why those aren't common, is the early term abortion is available, and is much easier than finding a doctor to perform the illegal procedure. You ban abortion 100%, and it becomes just as difficult to get an early term abortion. The result is, it's always easier to wait until the last minute, so the late term abortions will become more common.
 
My wife is pregnant now with our 2nd child, and the new midwife we've hired who'll do our homebirth has birth'd over 1,000 babies with only 6 c-sections, and not 1 mother or infant has died.

Do I feel safe birthing our child at home and not in a hospital? Fuck yes.

Wow. You drank the Kool-aid didn't you?

I beg you to reconsider having a homebirth. I had a family friend lose a newborn from a breathing complication right after birth.

The birth was literally across the street from the hospital at a 'birthing center' They rushed the child over to the hospital but the 6 minutes or so it took them to get to the hospital was too late and they lost the child.

Fuck all the other hospital BS and go as all natural as you can... but don't be stupid about it.
 
I had a feeling you might, I do as well. I have to admit though, I find it curious that many people who have no issue with the concept of natural selection in nature have such a difficult time when the same principles are applied to governments, economies, and human beings. Isn't abortion a form of natural selection?

Natural selection means miscarriage forceable eliminatiin of life aka abortion is not a natural occurance. Your argument is weak sauce bro. Second the picture you claim is not human evoles into one at least thats what my wifes doctor told my wife. . .was he lyi.g did a stork bring me my kids? Also you ignored dr pauls expert opinion that when a woman is pregnant the doctors now have two patie ts why is that? Just because you want to make excuse as to why we should be able to kill babies doeant make it true man
 
Yeah I see all this, and honestly it's not a major deal to me. The OP's question is where do you separate from RP and I couldn't really think of anything solid, more along the lines somethings I'm unsure how they would play out since we've never (at least in recent history) had a leader that followed the constitution.

I can honestly say I have never been this aligned with a canidate, ever. It's bewildering and such an uplifting thing to behold. (Something I had almost given up on in our political system) More so, I'm excited about the younger generation embracing him. I was talking to my son about this and how great it is as a parent to behold his (almost) generation responding to Ron Paul. The old people always bemoan the youth, which is so ironic since they're the ones driving this country to shit. But apparently there's still hope.

423134_347636938604487_247447478623434_1152790_870308694_n.jpg

Thats my new background thanks!
 
There aren't many excuses on how your circumstances would come to needing an abortion. None that aren't a result of someone acting in a selfish and self-centered way.

You have a right to act in a selfish and self-centered way.
 
Natural selection means miscarriage forceable eliminatiin of life aka abortion is not a natural occurance. Your argument is weak sauce bro. Second the picture you claim is not human evoles into one at least thats what my wifes doctor told my wife. . .was he lyi.g did a stork bring me my kids? Also you ignored dr pauls expert opinion that when a woman is pregnant the doctors now have two patie ts why is that? Just because you want to make excuse as to why we should be able to kill babies doeant make it true man

The doctors have two patients because law says so. If someone passes a law to look after the mother first and only priority, there will be doctors for a couple weeks who ignore that kind of legislation. After about a month all of them have lost their licenses, because the government somehow has a monopoly on deciding whos allowed to practice medicine and who isnt. And dont bullshit yourself into thinking youd trust those who are discredited by the media in some major way.


You get into different kinds of philosophical (legislative) issues if you draw a line between a mothers body involuntarily ejecting the young embryo, which often happens, and the mother deciding that she wants that happening.

Take a look at killing a person. A murderer gets some kind of harsher penalty than the guy who just accidentally took a life, but that guy still goes to jail. It was not his intention to do any harm.

The mother who has a miscarriage probably didnt want to "hurt" her "baby", but the "baby" is still dead. Her body rejected it. How is that different from the mind rejecting it? Thats a serious question. Where do you draw the line? Is the body allowed to made subconscious decisions that are intolerable if made by the part of the human being called intelligence or mind or spirit?


Im fine with you disregarding any kind of argument in favor of shouting "x is bad", but please leave it out of this thread. There are many communities on the internet that share exactly your opinion and would welcome you.
 
Please keep in mind the recidivism rate in America is 60%.

And those are just the ones that get caught again. In reality, prison is just a college for criminals, where they get the chance to talk to other like-minded felons, making criminal connections, learning how to make more money and cover their tracks better.

Until there is prison reform or a successful rehabilitation procedure in place, anybody you send to prison is pretty much a lost cause - if they weren't a lost cause when they went in, they will be after having spent any period of time in there

You could also say it's a college for creating criminals out of non-criminals, as you allude to in your last sentence.

Once one is in there for a non-violent non-crime and branded a criminal, I imagine it might make more sense to make criminal connections and became a real criminal, rather than try to go "straight" in a world that won't take you back once the state has done a number on you.
 
The doctors have two patients because law says so. If someone passes a law to look after the mother first and only priority, there will be doctors for a couple weeks who ignore that kind of legislation. After about a month all of them have lost their licenses, because the government somehow has a monopoly on deciding whos allowed to practice medicine and who isnt. And dont bullshit yourself into thinking youd trust those who are discredited by the media in some major way.


You get into different kinds of philosophical (legislative) issues if you draw a line between a mothers body involuntarily ejecting the young embryo, which often happens, and the mother deciding that she wants that happening.

Take a look at killing a person. A murderer gets some kind of harsher penalty than the guy who just accidentally took a life, but that guy still goes to jail. It was not his intention to do any harm.

The mother who has a miscarriage probably didnt want to "hurt" her "baby", but the "baby" is still dead. Her body rejected it. How is that different from the mind rejecting it? Thats a serious question. Where do you draw the line? Is the body allowed to made subconscious decisions that are intolerable if made by the part of the human being called intelligence or mind or spirit?

Im fine with you disregarding any kind of argument in favor of shouting "x is bad", but please leave it out of this thread. There are many communities on the internet that share exactly your opinion and would welcome you.

You are sayin that a miscarraige is an accident? Wow thats stupid. No not even close.

Thats not even close to a serious question. Better yet. Not sure if serious?

Only if i can cum in your face while proclaiming not sure if serious!?!?!?!?
 
I think he's the most honest politician in modern history. The media never gives him a break and they always paint his views as being more extreme than they are. I don't like the way he is made a non-issue in the debates. One candidate will discuss the others in a way that makes it look like Ron Paul isn't even standing up there. It's disrespectful and, in terms of integrity, Paul wins by a landslide.
 
And the first part. Law says it a peron so a doctor says its a person. When a pregnant woman is killed its double homicide relying on the fact that its a person, but ehen a mother wants to kill a person as a form of birth control its not a person? Now that raises a serious question!
 
I guess my question is: am I diverging from the libertarian path by taking issue with maximizing any type of government control (whether local, state, or federal)? And if not, then is Ron Paul? As it seem he mostly just wants to take power from the federal government and give it back to the states.

Personally I would like to see the control returned to the States. If I don't like a particular state, I move to another one. At that point you have 50 different states all competing for citizens. If a state starts getting to draconian people start leaving in droves. Talk about free market. The problem with an over-reaching federal government is that I can't move anywhere else. It's Federal, it follows me everywhere...

Regardless, the states still have limits on power. Our "inalienable" rights ... which we're being alienated from as we speak.
 
I was very disappointed when he endorsed the Constitution Party's candidate. They have horrible rhetoric.

Here's what they think about pornography.
Constitution Party Platform: Pornography
Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.


Here's what they think about gambling.
Constitution Party Platform: Gambling
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

They remind me of Rick Santorum. At least they call for kicking gambling down to the state level though.
 
Last edited:
You have a right to act in a selfish and self-centered way.

Precisely why I say that government shouldn't stop you or be involved in the matter. It's ultimately up to you. I personally would not feel comfortable with it on my conscience, my post was more my personal feelings toward abortion, not what I believe should be enforced.