Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
right. it's me that sucks at thinking.this is profoundly moronic.Not if a child attends public school. You have no right morally to put my child at risk.from the OP, here is exactly what he said:
"
When asked by radio host Laura Ingraham Monday about his views on vaccination, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said that while he is not “anti-vaccine” at all, he does think they should be voluntary, later going on to say that vaccines can cause “mental disorders.”
Please note the words "can cause". He did not say "will cause" or "most cause". He said "can" cause.
If your child is vaccinated why would they be at risk? You libs really suck at thinking.
first, vaccines do not offer 100% immunity. they may not be effective in some people, and some people are not able to be vaccinated because of other health reasons or age.
second, sick people breed illnesses. a compromised immune system is susceptible to other diseases, and so while we may be immunized against your primary illness, your secondary disease may infect other people.
third, while treating your unimmunized dumbass for a completely preventable disease resources are consumed that would otherwise be used to treat diseases that aren't completely preventable.
As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
You should be careful about calling other people stupid. The incidence of measles is illustrative.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.this is profoundly moronic.Not if a child attends public school. You have no right morally to put my child at risk.
If your child is vaccinated why would they be at risk? You libs really suck at thinking.
first, vaccines do not offer 100% immunity. they may not be effective in some people, and some people are not able to be vaccinated because of other health reasons or age.
second, sick people breed illnesses. a compromised immune system is susceptible to other diseases, and so while we may be immunized against your primary illness, your secondary disease may infect other people.
third, while treating your unimmunized dumbass for a completely preventable disease resources are consumed that would otherwise be used to treat diseases that aren't completely preventable.
As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
You should be careful about calling other people stupid. The incidence of measles is illustrative.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.this is profoundly moronic.If your child is vaccinated why would they be at risk? You libs really suck at thinking.
first, vaccines do not offer 100% immunity. they may not be effective in some people, and some people are not able to be vaccinated because of other health reasons or age.
second, sick people breed illnesses. a compromised immune system is susceptible to other diseases, and so while we may be immunized against your primary illness, your secondary disease may infect other people.
third, while treating your unimmunized dumbass for a completely preventable disease resources are consumed that would otherwise be used to treat diseases that aren't completely preventable.
As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
Bite yourself, nazi boy. Ensuring public health is not fascism. It's good common sensical Americanism.Every parent who does not use regular medicine as a part of their health care regimen for very ill children must be prosecuted. A child who is not vaccinated for yet contracts polio or other preventable dangerous diseases must be removed from the parents' custody and visitation forever, and the parents must pay for their child's care of the rest of the child's life. That can be done by judgment, and if the law is changed by the legislature, the law can be overturned by the judges.
^ Channeling Josef Mengele
Horse shit, Tonto. And if you won't do right by your child, then We the People can and will.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.this is profoundly moronic.Not if a child attends public school. You have no right morally to put my child at risk.
If your child is vaccinated why would they be at risk? You libs really suck at thinking.
first, vaccines do not offer 100% immunity. they may not be effective in some people, and some people are not able to be vaccinated because of other health reasons or age.
second, sick people breed illnesses. a compromised immune system is susceptible to other diseases, and so while we may be immunized against your primary illness, your secondary disease may infect other people.
third, while treating your unimmunized dumbass for a completely preventable disease resources are consumed that would otherwise be used to treat diseases that aren't completely preventable.
As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
Don't discourage him. It's like watching a train wreck. Oddly fascinating and terrifying at the same time.Horse shit, Tonto. And if you won't do right by your child, then We the People can and will.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.this is profoundly moronic.If your child is vaccinated why would they be at risk? You libs really suck at thinking.
first, vaccines do not offer 100% immunity. they may not be effective in some people, and some people are not able to be vaccinated because of other health reasons or age.
second, sick people breed illnesses. a compromised immune system is susceptible to other diseases, and so while we may be immunized against your primary illness, your secondary disease may infect other people.
third, while treating your unimmunized dumbass for a completely preventable disease resources are consumed that would otherwise be used to treat diseases that aren't completely preventable.
As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
Horse shit, Tonto. And if you won't do right by your child, then We the People can and will.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.this is profoundly moronic.If your child is vaccinated why would they be at risk? You libs really suck at thinking.
first, vaccines do not offer 100% immunity. they may not be effective in some people, and some people are not able to be vaccinated because of other health reasons or age.
second, sick people breed illnesses. a compromised immune system is susceptible to other diseases, and so while we may be immunized against your primary illness, your secondary disease may infect other people.
third, while treating your unimmunized dumbass for a completely preventable disease resources are consumed that would otherwise be used to treat diseases that aren't completely preventable.
As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
true. a kid who has been vaccinated but does not develop the antibodies is as much at risk as someone that has not been vaccinated.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.this is profoundly moronic.Not if a child attends public school. You have no right morally to put my child at risk.
If your child is vaccinated why would they be at risk? You libs really suck at thinking.
first, vaccines do not offer 100% immunity. they may not be effective in some people, and some people are not able to be vaccinated because of other health reasons or age.
second, sick people breed illnesses. a compromised immune system is susceptible to other diseases, and so while we may be immunized against your primary illness, your secondary disease may infect other people.
third, while treating your unimmunized dumbass for a completely preventable disease resources are consumed that would otherwise be used to treat diseases that aren't completely preventable.
As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
Don't help him out. There are three questions he obviously hasn't even considered questioning, let alone answering. Why is a vaccination generally not given in the first year of life (in the US)? Why are two vaccinations generally required in the US, and does merely one vaccination convey an immunity?true. a kid who has been vaccinated but does not develop the antibodies is as much at risk as someone that has not been vaccinated.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.this is profoundly moronic.If your child is vaccinated why would they be at risk? You libs really suck at thinking.
first, vaccines do not offer 100% immunity. they may not be effective in some people, and some people are not able to be vaccinated because of other health reasons or age.
second, sick people breed illnesses. a compromised immune system is susceptible to other diseases, and so while we may be immunized against your primary illness, your secondary disease may infect other people.
third, while treating your unimmunized dumbass for a completely preventable disease resources are consumed that would otherwise be used to treat diseases that aren't completely preventable.
As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
of course, an unvaccinated child has a 100% chance of not having an immunity, whereas the vaccinated child's risk is much, much smaller.
so who is knowlingly putting others at risk, the kid who didn't develop an immunity from vaccination, or the kid who wasn't vaccinated?
and the math in my question was clear and easy - in the first scenario 90% of the people would have immunity to a disease. in the second, only 81%. Which community would you rather live in?
Don't help him out. There are three questions he obviously hasn't even considered questioning, let alone answering. Why is a vaccination generally not given in the first year of life (in the US)? Why are two vaccinations generally required in the US, and does merely one vaccination convey an immunity?true. a kid who has been vaccinated but does not develop the antibodies is as much at risk as someone that has not been vaccinated.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.this is profoundly moronic.
first, vaccines do not offer 100% immunity. they may not be effective in some people, and some people are not able to be vaccinated because of other health reasons or age.
second, sick people breed illnesses. a compromised immune system is susceptible to other diseases, and so while we may be immunized against your primary illness, your secondary disease may infect other people.
third, while treating your unimmunized dumbass for a completely preventable disease resources are consumed that would otherwise be used to treat diseases that aren't completely preventable.
As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
of course, an unvaccinated child has a 100% chance of not having an immunity, whereas the vaccinated child's risk is much, much smaller.
so who is knowlingly putting others at risk, the kid who didn't develop an immunity from vaccination, or the kid who wasn't vaccinated?
and the math in my question was clear and easy - in the first scenario 90% of the people would have immunity to a disease. in the second, only 81%. Which community would you rather live in?
Paul does not have the common sense (neither do libertarians or pseudo libertarians) to be in elective office.
Measles was never eradicated, but never let facts get in the way or your rants.Don't help him out. There are three questions he obviously hasn't even considered questioning, let alone answering. Why is a vaccination generally not given in the first year of life (in the US)? Why are two vaccinations generally required in the US, and does merely one vaccination convey an immunity?true. a kid who has been vaccinated but does not develop the antibodies is as much at risk as someone that has not been vaccinated.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.As I said you libs suck at thinking. If the vaccine was not effective in your kid why are they in school posing a risk to others? lol
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
of course, an unvaccinated child has a 100% chance of not having an immunity, whereas the vaccinated child's risk is much, much smaller.
so who is knowlingly putting others at risk, the kid who didn't develop an immunity from vaccination, or the kid who wasn't vaccinated?
and the math in my question was clear and easy - in the first scenario 90% of the people would have immunity to a disease. in the second, only 81%. Which community would you rather live in?
the medical details are not the issue. The issue is why are we having outbreaks of diseases that we had declared eradicated in this country years ago? any idea why that is, libs?
Measles was never eradicated, but never let facts get in the way or your rants.Don't help him out. There are three questions he obviously hasn't even considered questioning, let alone answering. Why is a vaccination generally not given in the first year of life (in the US)? Why are two vaccinations generally required in the US, and does merely one vaccination convey an immunity?true. a kid who has been vaccinated but does not develop the antibodies is as much at risk as someone that has not been vaccinated.right. it's me that sucks at thinking.
which do you think is more likely to happen, an outbreak of a disease where 100% of the people were immunized with a 90% effective vaccine or an outbreak where 90% of the people are immunized with the same vaccine?
Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
of course, an unvaccinated child has a 100% chance of not having an immunity, whereas the vaccinated child's risk is much, much smaller.
so who is knowlingly putting others at risk, the kid who didn't develop an immunity from vaccination, or the kid who wasn't vaccinated?
and the math in my question was clear and easy - in the first scenario 90% of the people would have immunity to a disease. in the second, only 81%. Which community would you rather live in?
the medical details are not the issue. The issue is why are we having outbreaks of diseases that we had declared eradicated in this country years ago? any idea why that is, libs?
Measles was never eradicated, but never let facts get in the way or your rants.Don't help him out. There are three questions he obviously hasn't even considered questioning, let alone answering. Why is a vaccination generally not given in the first year of life (in the US)? Why are two vaccinations generally required in the US, and does merely one vaccination convey an immunity?true. a kid who has been vaccinated but does not develop the antibodies is as much at risk as someone that has not been vaccinated.Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
of course, an unvaccinated child has a 100% chance of not having an immunity, whereas the vaccinated child's risk is much, much smaller.
so who is knowlingly putting others at risk, the kid who didn't develop an immunity from vaccination, or the kid who wasn't vaccinated?
and the math in my question was clear and easy - in the first scenario 90% of the people would have immunity to a disease. in the second, only 81%. Which community would you rather live in?
the medical details are not the issue. The issue is why are we having outbreaks of diseases that we had declared eradicated in this country years ago? any idea why that is, libs?
do you see the word 'measles' anywhere in my last post?
But I do believe that the surgeon general declared that measles had been eradicated in the USA around 2002. I'll check on that.
God damn, you got me. I assumed you were making a comment on topic. I should know better!Measles was never eradicated, but never let facts get in the way or your rants.Don't help him out. There are three questions he obviously hasn't even considered questioning, let alone answering. Why is a vaccination generally not given in the first year of life (in the US)? Why are two vaccinations generally required in the US, and does merely one vaccination convey an immunity?true. a kid who has been vaccinated but does not develop the antibodies is as much at risk as someone that has not been vaccinated.Apparently you people also suck at math, your question is well stupid. Again this other clown foamed at the mouth that an un-vaccinated kid posed a risk to his vaccinated kid. That would only be true if the vaccine was not effective in his kid, in which case his kid poses the same risk to others as the un-vaccinated kid...right...libs its not rocket science.
of course, an unvaccinated child has a 100% chance of not having an immunity, whereas the vaccinated child's risk is much, much smaller.
so who is knowlingly putting others at risk, the kid who didn't develop an immunity from vaccination, or the kid who wasn't vaccinated?
and the math in my question was clear and easy - in the first scenario 90% of the people would have immunity to a disease. in the second, only 81%. Which community would you rather live in?
the medical details are not the issue. The issue is why are we having outbreaks of diseases that we had declared eradicated in this country years ago? any idea why that is, libs?
do you see the word 'measles' anywhere in my last post?
But I do believe that the surgeon general declared that measles had been eradicated in the USA around 2002. I'll check on that.
Measles was never eradicated, but never let facts get in the way or your rants.Don't help him out. There are three questions he obviously hasn't even considered questioning, let alone answering. Why is a vaccination generally not given in the first year of life (in the US)? Why are two vaccinations generally required in the US, and does merely one vaccination convey an immunity?true. a kid who has been vaccinated but does not develop the antibodies is as much at risk as someone that has not been vaccinated.
of course, an unvaccinated child has a 100% chance of not having an immunity, whereas the vaccinated child's risk is much, much smaller.
so who is knowlingly putting others at risk, the kid who didn't develop an immunity from vaccination, or the kid who wasn't vaccinated?
and the math in my question was clear and easy - in the first scenario 90% of the people would have immunity to a disease. in the second, only 81%. Which community would you rather live in?
the medical details are not the issue. The issue is why are we having outbreaks of diseases that we had declared eradicated in this country years ago? any idea why that is, libs?
do you see the word 'measles' anywhere in my last post?
But I do believe that the surgeon general declared that measles had been eradicated in the USA around 2002. I'll check on that.
it was 2011
Measles 8212 United States 2011
yep, you got it. all those kids, crossing the border, headed straight to disneyworld.We would not even be talking about this if obozo had not opened our southern border and allowed thousands of illegal kids to come into this country carrying numerous diseases. Then you silly assholes insisted that they be brought into our schools with no health checks, vaccinations, or even checking to see if they were running a temp.
This is all on you libs, you are your false prophet obozo the great kenyan messiah.
Damn, but you libs are stupid.
