masterrig

I can't differentiate between women, gays and European males. I mean, they all carry purses...have you ever been HIT with one of those things??? Not fun. No, not lately! We don't see much of that where I live. Let me correct that... there is one place not too far away where it's just like you describe! I try not to 'disturb' them. You know... let sleeping dogs lie! Chuck

No, but I think you might be impervious to irony No, not really. Sometimes, this form of communication can make differentiating some things, a little tricky. Chuck

Well, hell, Andy...she wasn't willing to "play the game". What would you expect? That's how politics in the U.S. works! Well, maybe that's just because HE'S a republican. We ALL know, deep down in our heart-of-hearts that it applies to all parties across the board. Of anyone really thinks that "their" party is any different, meh,..... #1! Chuck

But then they'd be allowed to go around being gay near your children. Aren't you afraid your kids might catch gay? You should be, it happens! Bwa-hahahahaha... My kids are full-grown adult heterosexuals. What they choose to do now is up to them. I'm still, gonna love 'em. You do get a bit uppity... don't you? p.s. Do I sense a hint of homophobia there? Chuck

And just so we're all on the same page, in this case "some people" is you. (Nothing personal, just that anti-vaccine hysteria and the lies and misinformation that get spread about the subject is a massive pet peeve.) To be perfectly honest, I never so much as flinched over all this. I just involved myself in this 'conversation'. Being put in a 'general' group is a pet peeve of mine. I threw some things out there to see what would come back. That's a way of learning different views. Chuck

? Explain in other words... not acceptable. Chuck I thought what you were saying by "don't cut it" you were meaning "don't get the vas" as in don't get a vasectomy. Because I would have a serious problem with that, if that is what you meant. No, I have no problem with vasectomies! I've used that old saying all my life when I don't agree with something or just plain, find something un-acceptable. Chuck Good to hear.

well...harrumph... seemed like a good idea at the time. Chuck

Well... that really throws a wrench into the works! How 'bout this... we just leave 'em alone. You know... live and let live!? I mean, it seems to work in other places. Chuck

Geeze... can't we just put 'em in 'stocks'? Chuck

? Explain in other words... not acceptable. Chuck I thought what you were saying by "don't cut it" you were meaning "don't get the vas" as in don't get a vasectomy. Because I would have a serious problem with that, if that is what you meant. No, I have no problem with vasectomies! I've used that old saying all my life when I don't agree with something or just plain, find something un-acceptable. Chuck Good to hear.

? Explain in other words... not acceptable. Chuck I thought what you were saying by "don't cut it" you were meaning "don't get the vas" as in don't get a vasectomy. Because I would have a serious problem with that, if that is what you meant. No, I have no problem with vasectomies! I've used that old saying all my life when I don't agree with something or just plain, find something un-acceptable. Chuck

When he found out it had nanothermite in the list of ingredients, he figured he could not go wrong. Chuck

Where did you look it up? Who controlled the website? What was their agenda? How did they back up their claims? You have already demonstrated that there are flat out lies circulating on the subject because you repeated one of them. What fact checking have you done on this claim? Read this article about the sheer scale of the falsehoods contained in one frontpage article from a UK paper about an HPV vaccine and its side effects (as an incentive, it does contain valid criticism of the marketing of the Merck vaccine). Ask yourself how critical you've been about the reliability of the information you've been given about Gardasil. I did nothing more than search 'side-effects of gardisil' and clicked on the first one listed then, went back and scrolled down and selected another source. Trying to be 'random' in my selections. I'm not selecting just those sources that 'bad-mouth' the product as you tend to accuse me of. This only proves that you can find anything you want on the internet that supports your (not necessarily you) opinion or whatever. It just so happens that what I found was in complete contrast to what you found and you're getting accusatory because the information didn't agree. Who's to say that your information is reliable? Make sense? Chuck You could probably find a million side effects for small pox and polio vaccines online too. I think the CDC has been very consistent in providing vaccine data. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/gardasil.html Look what happened when people followed the advice online of not having their children vaccinated due to the concern of autism; dead children. Just proves, people need to be more careful in their research. Just random hits on the internet could prove disasterous. Then too, some people will believe what they want to believe and it's usually the scariest information out there. Chuck

? Explain in other words... not acceptable. Chuck

Yes, I did in fact, read the article you posted. Chuck

Where did you look it up? Who controlled the website? What was their agenda? How did they back up their claims? You have already demonstrated that there are flat out lies circulating on the subject because you repeated one of them. What fact checking have you done on this claim? Read this article about the sheer scale of the falsehoods contained in one frontpage article from a UK paper about an HPV vaccine and its side effects (as an incentive, it does contain valid criticism of the marketing of the Merck vaccine). Ask yourself how critical you've been about the reliability of the information you've been given about Gardasil. I did nothing more than search 'side-effects of gardisil' and clicked on the first one listed then, went back and scrolled down and selected another source. Trying to be 'random' in my selections. I'm not selecting just those sources that 'bad-mouth' the product as you tend to accuse me of. This only proves that you can find anything you want on the internet that supports your (not necessarily you) opinion or whatever. It just so happens that what I found was in complete contrast to what you found and you're getting accusatory because the information didn't agree. Who's to say that your information is reliable? Make sense? Chuck

I don't think anyone can be required by the Government to vaccinate their kids, I know the state of California "requires" the whooping cough vaccine be given to all public school students this year, but in reality, if it is against the parents "beliefs" they can opt out. From what I found, vaccinations for children have become more 'traditional' than mandated. The original topic of this thread was Perry being a kook. I don't like the guy because I think he's self-centered and self-serving. I wouldn't call him a 'kook' but rather someone who uses his position to gain power and what that power can bring 'him'. I believe he'd kiss the ass of the highest bidder. Chuck

What side effects? Almost exclusively from the anti-vaccine side, I would imagine. New vaccinations are always a magnet for uninformed hysteria, and when you multiply it by the standard religious conservative reaction to anything even remotely connected with sex you're going to end up with a whole lot of people talking a whole lot of bollocks. A lot of it was the idea of government telling people how to raise their kids. Also, the fact that Merck employed one of Perry's former 'people' and Perry had recieved campaign donations from Merck. The fact too, at the time Perry wanted this done, the 3-injections totaled $350.00. A lot of folks can't afford that. Yes, later on, insurance companies covered the injections. Here in Texas, there are too many folks who can't afford insurance. Too many people would've been between a rock and a hard place. None of those could be classed as side effects or misinformation. Are you changing your mind about what "the big thing" was? I looked-up the side effects of the drug and it's like a laundry list... The site you posted was nowhere near what I found. I was listing some of the reasons folks were against it. Chuck

Of course! Chuck

What side effects? Almost exclusively from the anti-vaccine side, I would imagine. New vaccinations are always a magnet for uninformed hysteria, and when you multiply it by the standard religious conservative reaction to anything even remotely connected with sex you're going to end up with a whole lot of people talking a whole lot of bollocks. A lot of it was the idea of government telling people how to raise their kids. Also, the fact that Merck employed one of Perry's former 'people' and Perry had recieved campaign donations from Merck. The fact too, at the time Perry wanted this done, the 3-injections totaled $350.00. A lot of folks can't afford that. Yes, later on, insurance companies covered the injections. Here in Texas, there are too many folks who can't afford insurance. Too many people would've been between a rock and a hard place. As for side-effects, what I found was a laundry list of side-effects. Chuck

I'm flabbergasted that Perry supported this vaccine, most conservatives went ape shit thinking this would turn 11 year old girls into sluts. I could never figure out who would think reducing the risk of cancer for their child is a bad thing. I didn't make the quote you credit me with. I think, the big thing was the side-effects of the drug and the idea of the governor forcing something on people. People don't seem to care for that. There was a lot of mis-information about the drug. Also, when it was learned that Merck was a financial supporter of Perry, it didn't set well. Chuck My apologies, fixed it. No big deal! Poo-poo happens. Chuck

I'm flabbergasted that Perry supported this vaccine, most conservatives went ape shit thinking this would turn 11 year old girls into sluts. I could never figure out who would think reducing the risk of cancer for their child is a bad thing. I didn't make the quote you credit me with. I think, the big thing was the side-effects of the drug and the idea of the governor forcing something on people. People don't seem to care for that. There was a lot of mis-information about the drug. Also, when it was learned that Merck was a financial supporter of Perry, it didn't set well. Chuck

He's obviously trying to win-over the 'Bible Belt'. He wins the 'Bible Belt', he gets a huge a number of votes and donation money. He is definately opportunistic. During our drought (which is still, continuing) Perry forms a prayer group to pray for rain. Our 'rainy season' was a bit late but it fell right into Perrys hands... we got some rain. No where near our annual rainfall but rain, none the less. Now, he's a damned hero! Chuck

Smells like bullshit. Lets see what a little checking reveals... Yep. It's bullshit. The HPV vaccine Gardasil was approved in june 2006 (and CDC recommends its use), Perry added it to the required vacination list in february 2007

To paraphrase Glenn Beck et.al., Republicans and Democrats are two heads on the same snake. Somebody please explain, who is running the show? Is it George Soros, the Bilderberg Group, the Muslim Brotherhood, China? Now that you mention it, there's no telling! Seems to me, it all about the power and control. Chuck