OK Republican calling for forced vaccininations - as predicted

[Glocktogo]

Link said “Page Not Found”. Regardless, out of how many vaccines are given, what is the percentage of those going tapioca? Doe that rate increase or decrease if one has a tinfoil hat on?


The only way they might stop you is if you put the rod in your butt. Even then it wouldn’t be for having a metal rod in a thunderstorm but for being south of deviant. As far as analogies go, I am going to assume you get the math.

Try this one: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html and the rate is irrelevant. It's a tacit admission by the .gov that the concern is valid, even if statistically small.

As for your second part, I have no clue what you're talking about. My point was the topic of discussion, which is .gov mandated vaccinations. You attempted to say it's OK because the risk is lower than getting hit by lightning. My point was the .gov isn't trying to make it mandatory to get struck by lightning.

What part of that didn't you understand?

What do undocumented and muslim children, specifically, have to do with any of this?

He was alluding to the fact that quite a few of the undocumented minor children that recently flooded the U.S. in anticipation of Obama's amnesty attempt carried these diseases across the border. While the statists are busy trying to mandate vaccinations for U.S. children, the undocumented kids aren't going to be and yet some in the .gov WANT them to come here. Incongruous, no?

As for the Muslim kids, many Muslim communities have their own enclaves and schools in the U.S.. Will the vaccine police be going in to force their vaccinations?

Both are valid points.

 

[Coded-Dude]

there are religious exceptions to vaccination. not sure how undocumented "citizens" apply though.....

 

[sh00ter]

What do undocumented and muslim children, specifically, have to do with any of this?

my point was, that as protected classes, it would not surprise me if these groups were exempted. I believe that in today's society, that if Muslims claim a religious exemption to a law like this, that it might carry more weight than other religious groups. And considering illegals also seem to have special privileges in this country, that I could see them also being exempted so they can come here and go straight to school. And the point behind that is I think some of the diseases are brought here by illegal immigrants like the tuberculosis outbreaks, etc. This was not a random jab at these groups, it was a genuine possibility based on past precedence with these and other protected classes.

 

[sh00ter]

there are religious exceptions to vaccination. not sure how undocumented "citizens" apply though.....

Yes, but under this possible legislation, the religious exemption would be removed...If Hobby Lobby can win their religious freedom law suit over merely paying for the morning after pill, I'm pretty sure I could win one over being forced against my religious beliefs to pay for AND actually inject viruses grown on aborted fetal lung tissue with possible DNA fragments still remaining in the shot.

Try this one: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html and the rate is irrelevant. It's a tacit admission by the .gov that the concern is valid, even if statistically small.

As for your second part, I have no clue what you're talking about. My point was the topic of discussion, which is .gov mandated vaccinations. You attempted to say it's OK because the risk is lower than getting hit by lightning. My point was the .gov isn't trying to make it mandatory to get struck by lightning.

What part of that didn't you understand?



He was alluding to the fact that quite a few of the undocumented minor children that recently flooded the U.S. in anticipation of Obama's amnesty attempt carried these diseases across the border. While the statists are busy trying to mandate vaccinations for U.S. children, the undocumented kids aren't going to be and yet some in the .gov WANT them to come here. Incongruous, no?

As for the Muslim kids, many Muslim communities have their own enclaves and schools in the U.S.. Will the vaccine police be going in to force their vaccinations?

Both are valid points.

Thanks...and as for the HRSA links, one only needs to look at the Merck or other drug company inserts for these vaccines to see the side-effects they admit could happen...HRSA data is only a bonus LOL...but these are routinely ignored...I covered them well in the autism thread.

 

[MadDogs]

but the current technology for it is not as safe and effective as the general public likes to think.

As for being in public with your children, you do realize that vaccines are not 100% effective right?

Nothing is 100%. Anyone capable of holding a spoon should get that. Back to square one. The odd of one getting a disease are minimized if they are vaccinated.

Plenty of cases of vaccinated people catching and spreading disease.

And more people that are vaccinated that don’t catch a disease than there are those who are vaccinated who do. Following your logic I would suggest that should never gamble with real money.

Also, what do you do during flu season? Do you think 99% of people take the flu shot and give it to their kids?

I think the point is to get a flu shot so you don’t catch the flu to give to your kids. My personal experience with such seems to work pretty well.

And those who feel the unvaccinated are a threat to them; the world doesn't revolve around them and their family …

Works both ways. The world doesn’t revolve around you either.

… they should not get to force me to expose my children to the risk of vaccines …

Again, which risk is greater? Getting sick from not having a vaccine or getting sick from the vaccine?

...this is a real easy argument for "your side" because all they have to do is marginalize anyone who has any opinion other than theirs and ignore the reasons that parents opt out...not all of them are right I'm sure …

Speaking of marginalizing.

... so if you believe in them so much, then why force others to get vaccines?

Have not suggested anyone be forced to have a vaccine, have I? What I would suggest is that if you didn’t want to have your children, yourself or your pets vaccinated; you should be made aware of possible consequences should the fruit of your loins get someone sick.

… why are you worried if your child is protected?

I don’t know … maybe because they are proven to stop the spread of diseases two or more years down the proverbial road if more people are vaccinated? Maybe it’s like carrying an extra mag for Glock 19 because you never know when 16 rounds might not be enough?

Let me ask you this again. Do you have pets and do you vaccinate your pets?

 

[Glocktogo]

Nothing is 100%. Anyone capable of holding a spoon should get that. Back to square one. The odd of one getting a disease are minimized if they are vaccinated.



And more people that are vaccinated that don’t catch a disease than there are those who are vaccinated who do. Following your logic I would suggest that should never gamble with real money.



I think the point is to get a flu shot so you don’t catch the flu to give to your kids. My personal experience with such seems to work pretty well.



Works both ways. The world doesn’t revolve around you either.



Again, which risk is greater? Getting sick from not having a vaccine or getting sick from the vaccine?



Speaking of marginalizing.



Have not suggested anyone be forced to have a vaccine, have I? What I would suggest is that if you didn’t want to have your children, yourself or your pets vaccinated; you should be made aware of possible consequences should the fruit of your loins get someone sick.



I don’t know … maybe because they are proven to stop the spread of diseases two or more years down the proverbial road if more people are vaccinated? Maybe it’s like carrying an extra mag for Glock 19 because you never know when 16 rounds might not be enough?

Let me ask you this again. Do you have pets and do you vaccinate your pets?

You didn't even read the thread title, did you?

 

[sh00ter]

Nothing is 100%. Anyone capable of holding a spoon should get that. Back to square one. The odd of one getting a disease are minimized if they are vaccinated.



And more people that are vaccinated that don’t catch a disease than there are those who are vaccinated who do. Following your logic I would suggest that should never gamble with real money.



I think the point is to get a flu shot so you don’t catch the flu to give to your kids. My personal experience with such seems to work pretty well.



Works both ways. The world doesn’t revolve around you either.



Again, which risk is greater? Getting sick from not having a vaccine or getting sick from the vaccine?



Speaking of marginalizing.



Have not suggested anyone be forced to have a vaccine, have I? What I would suggest is that if you didn’t want to have your children, yourself or your pets vaccinated; you should be made aware of possible consequences should the fruit of your loins get someone sick.



I don’t know … maybe because they are proven to stop the spread of diseases two or more years down the proverbial road if more people are vaccinated? Maybe it’s like carrying an extra mag for Glock 19 because you never know when 16 rounds might not be enough?

Let me ask you this again. Do you have pets and do you vaccinate your pets?

So if anyone gets anyone sick we go after them? This is easy to prove I guess LOL...What if someone doesn't do frequent hand washing during flu season? Shall we hold them liable or not let them attend public schools? If someone was negligent, I agree with you...but it would need to be cut & dry gross negligence like sending a measles covered kid to school (yes some parents are crap...but not too many deliberate non-vaxers are that dumb)...and it should also work the other way...if you do not quarantine YOUR child when sick or after getting one of the live virus vaccines that shed, and you infect mine, then you better be prepared to hold yourself to the same standard...also if you feed your kid a junk food diet...you are putting us all at risk...I mean I know the point you are trying to make but it isn't exclusive to just childhood vaccines...you think this is such a black & white issue...why is so important to you now? Why were you not ranting daily about people (anyone not just unvaccinated) better not get you or your kids sick or else? Why not 5yrs ago...10? Did you say that back then? Do we have a track record of mass death in Oklahoma schools that is proven to be attributed to negligence and unvaccinated kids? The flu outbreaks (which often happen to people who take the vaccine) sure happen anyway in schools...and I am not going to answer you about animals...our children are not dogs and that is whole other topic I will not cover in a thread about mandatory vaccines for humans. I have mixed feelings on it and would tend towards err on the side of liberty as many animal vaccines are to protect the animal and not the other animals at the public dog school; but measles isn't spread through bites LOL.

 

[farmerbyron]

My bad. After reading your take on the TPP, I thought you might be. Maybe just a little bit?

No, I despise statism. Advocate free trade, which I'm not sure why that would be considered a statist position but this is the wrong thread for that.

 

[MadDogs]

Try this one: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html and the rate is irrelevant. It's a tacit admission by the .gov that the concern is valid, even if statistically small.

The rate is indeed relevant if one is whining about the dangers of vaccines or trying to invalidate the rationale for having a vaccine.

As for your second part, I have no clue what you're talking about. My point was the topic of discussion, which is .gov mandated vaccinations. You attempted to say it's OK because the risk is lower than getting hit by lightning. My point was the .gov isn't trying to make it mandatory to get struck by lightning. What part of that didn't you understand?

Let me try it this way with you. The risk of getting a bad reaction to a vaccine is 100 times less likely than getting hit by lightning. You OK so far? Now, that what that would mean when you do the math is that you are more likely to get hit by lighting no matter how you are holding your rod.

While I have a reasonable “understanding” that the government does not want people to get tagged by lightning I am not sure if you do.

 

[Glocktogo]

The rate is indeed relevant if one is whining about the dangers of vaccines or trying to invalidate the rationale for having a vaccine.



Let me try it this way with you. The risk of getting a bad reaction to a vaccine is 100 times less likely than getting hit by lightning. You OK so far? Now, that what that would mean when you do the math is that you are more likely to get hit by lighting no matter how you are holding your rod.

While I have a reasonable “understanding” that the government does not want people to get tagged by lightning I am not sure if you do.

You don't even understand the premise of this discussion, so I'm done responding to you unless you get a handle on it, mmmmkay?