• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape!" (note, in quotes)

If you've been vaccinated, and vaccination is so effective, how is my being unvaccinated going to put you at any risk? No ignorance here....
A number of diseases are particularly dangerous to infants too young for the vaccine to work in. You have to vaccinate other people to protect the infants.

Also, currently we are seeing some cases of measles in people who have been vaccinated. Depending on the vaccine failure rate and the infectiousness of the pathogen, a certain level of herd immunity prevents the people in whom the vaccine failed from being exposed. When more and more people go unvaccinated the chance of disease exposure to a vaccine failure increases.
 
Last edited:
All of which makes the distinction between 'anti-vaxer' (as in scare stories), and 'anti government mandated vaccinations', not terribly comforting.
 
I don't remember saying 'vaccine failure', and can't find them in the article.

What the article *did* say, was that the development of drug resistant strains was part of the re-emergence, which was in answer to the question 'how does my not being vaccinated put anyone else at risk'?

In other articles, it is clear that TB was deemed controllable by the medical community before the 1980s. They were wrong in the end, but they had the means... absent human behavior.

"Drugs Vanquish TB"
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/tuberculosis/Understanding/history/Pages/historical_optimism.aspx

During the 1940s, TB vaccines took a back seat to advances in drug therapy. Dogged effort by the American scientist Selman Waksman produced streptomycin, a relatively non-toxic antibiotic derived from a soil fungus. On November 20, 1944, a critically ill TB patient received streptomycin. Within days, he began a near-miraculous recovery. A host of drugs followed on the heels of streptomycin and, when used in combination, they could usually cure TB without engendering drug-resistant bacteria. Some of the most important drugs introduced during the 1940s and '50s included isoniazid, rifampin, and ethambutol.

Effective drugs brought the sanatorium era to a close. Some research journals devoted to TB ceased publication, and organizations such as the American Lung Association (formerly known as The National Association for the Study and Prevention of Tuberculosis) redirected their efforts. Confidence arose that TB, like infectious diseases of previous centuries, could be completely conquered by drug therapy. Indeed, the United Nations predicted the worldwide elimination of TB by the year 2025. But this ancient enemy was not so easily routed."
 
That's ignorant but regardless, take that and reverse it. I impose my will on you by mandating you get vaccinated. After all, the vaccine I mandate you take is good for me. You impose your will on me by not getting vaccinated thus exposing me to a disease.

The difference is merely semantics and from whose eyes one is looking through.

It is not merely semantics.

If I force you to get vaccinated, I inconvenience you.
If you force my (hypothetical) infant to be exposed to your unvaccinated self, you risk them being harmed.

Harm is worse than inconvenience. It´s really the same argument as for laws against drunk driving: your right to have fun, or not be inconvenienced, does not allow you to expose others to unnecessary risk of harm.
 
It is not merely semantics.

If I force you to get vaccinated, I inconvenience you.
If you force my (hypothetical) infant to be exposed to your unvaccinated self, you risk them being harmed.

Harm is worse than inconvenience. It´s really the same argument as for laws against drunk driving: your right to have fun, or not be inconvenienced, does not allow you to expose others to unnecessary risk of harm.

This post presupposes two untenable premises: (1) that unvaccinated infants have no immunity; and (2) that vaccination does no harm.

I suggest reading up on (1) colostrum; and (2) thimerosal.
 
This post presupposes two untenable premises: (1) that unvaccinated infants have no immunity; and (2) that vaccination does no harm.

I suggest reading up on (1) colostrum; and (2) thimerosal.

I just did:
Wikipedia said:
...it prevents serious adverse effects such as the Staphylococcus infection...
...
In the United States, countries in the European Union and a few other affluent countries, thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in routine childhood vaccination schedules.
...
the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more-expensive single-dose administration.
Doesn't sound all that bad. And that's not Paul's beef, either.

But that's off topic, as are all posts since I pointed out that Paul's stance is not anti-vaccination. Maybe we should return to debating what Paul's views are and whether they include racist remarks, rather than digging deep into side trenches.
 
It is not merely semantics.

If I force you to get vaccinated, I inconvenience you.
If you force my (hypothetical) infant to be exposed to your unvaccinated self, you risk them being harmed.

Harm is worse than inconvenience. It´s really the same argument as for laws against drunk driving: your right to have fun, or not be inconvenienced, does not allow you to expose others to unnecessary risk of harm.
I'm not quite sure what you think my argument was, unless this is just adding to what I said.
 
This post presupposes two untenable premises: (1) that unvaccinated infants have no immunity; and (2) that vaccination does no harm.

I suggest reading up on (1) colostrum; and (2) thimerosal.
Your medical knowledge deficiency is showing.
 
Ron Paul, kids. Ron Paul!

It's not like we don't have sufficient Anti-Vax threads to work with if one wants to discuss that topic directly.
 
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ex-...believe-u-s-had-any-business-fighting-hitler/
Snapz-Pro-XScreenSnapz199.png


Eric Dondero, who worked for Ron Paul on and off for a total of 12 years dating back to 1987, released a jaw-dropping statement in Right Wing News Monday in regards to his old boss. It appears Dondero wrote the statement to answer questions presented to him of late by various media outlets in regards to controversial newsletters connected to the congressman that have consumed his campaign for President. While attempting to defend Paul as not being a “racist” or “homophobic,” as many have accused him of being given the hateful language in the newsletters, Dondero “sets the record straight” by making shocking claims about the beliefs and behind-closed-doors statements of the man vying to be Commander in Chief. The Paul campaign has already reacted to Dondero’s claims, labeling him as a disgruntled ex-employee. Nonetheless, the allegations are astounding.
Dondero begins by strongly refuting claims that Paul is a “racist,” saying he never heard Paul make any racist comments in the 12 years he worked for the man, and makes clear that the congressman has frequently hired blacks and Hispanics for his office staff. However, Dondero makes “one caveat,“ stating that Paul is ”out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture:
“He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)”
​
Dondero, who is half-Jewish himself, says Paul is not Anti-Semitic. He says Paul has no issue with Jewish-Americans and can “categorically” say that he has never heard anything Anti-Semitic, slurs or any sort of derogatory marks come out of Paul’s mouth. However, Dondero claims Paul is “most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general:”

I think this is probably correct. I think Ron Paul is out of touch. I don't think he is on the same level of a Nazi or a KKK member.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/#wrapper
 
I think Ron Paul is out of touch. I don't think he is on the same level of a Nazi or a KKK member.
No, but he's tight with the John Birch Society. True, there are still a lot of people who go nuts when you mention communism, but this sort of extremism mostly went out with Joe McCarthy.
 
I think this is probably correct. I think Ron Paul is out of touch. I don't think he is on the same level of a Nazi or a KKK member.
No doubt that's true. But I am highly suspicious of the Dondero piece. For a guy who is claiming to help Paul, he digs him an impossibly deep hole. It almost has a Poe-like quality to it. Bill, do you accept the claims Dondero makes?
 
I think this is probably correct. I think Ron Paul is out of touch. I don't think he is on the same level of a Nazi or a KKK member.

Was he "out of touch" when he wrote those newsletters? No, he was pandering to extremists. So, if you're willing to talk like a racist in order to milk money out of racists, what else are you willing to do?
 
No doubt that's true. But I am highly suspicious of the Dondero piece. For a guy who is claiming to help Paul, he digs him an impossibly deep hole. It almost has a Poe-like quality to it. Bill, do you accept the claims Dondero makes?

Dondero pulled this same stunt in '08, IIRC. I can't say whether I believe him or not, nor do I care that much. He's certainly not my primary source of information, though and I wouldn't recommend anyone else trust him too much.
 
I think Ron Paul is out of touch. I don't think he is on the same level of a Nazi or a KKK member.

So is there nothing short of being a Nazi or KKK member that is "racist"? (How is that not a strawman argument since no one here has claimed Ron Paul is "on the same level of a Nazi or a KKK member"? Seriously, no one has accused him of doing violence against blacks, or even of advocating violence against blacks.)

This is pretty much the same logical problem as your redefining racism to be limited to statements that explicitly express hatred of a race.

"Out of touch" is just disingenuous spin. He has offered inconsistent and inadequate responses to questions about the racist comments made in his name in his newsletter.
 
This post presupposes two untenable premises: (1) that unvaccinated infants have no immunity; and (2) that vaccination does no harm.

I suggest reading up on (1) colostrum; and (2) thimerosal.

Vaccination proponents assume that unvaccinated infants have no immunity? Do you even know how vaccines work?!?!?!?!?:eek:
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom